"This unconstrained Russian state also has destroyed Western wealth (happily stolen
under Yeltsin gang rule-- NNB) and discouraged investment by arbitrarily enforcing environmental
regulations against foreign oil investors, shutting out foreign partners in the development
of the Shtokman gas field, and denying a visa to the largest portfolio investor in Russia,
British citizen William Browder." - M. McFaul,
May 17, 2007 House Committee on International Relations, Russia Rebuilding the Iron Curtain
"To promote liberty requires first the containment and then the elimination of those
forces opposed to liberty, be they individuals, movements, or regimes. " - M. McFaul,
The Liberty Doctrine: Reclaiming the purpose of American power. Policy Review April
& May 2002
The
Liberty Doctrine Hoover Institution
What could be worse [for US imperial interests -- NNB] than a thriving Russian capitalist
economy helping to advance the foreign policy interests of autocratic nationalists in the Kremlin?
– M. McFaul,
Why the nationalists surged in the Russian election. - Slate Magazine" Dec. 16,
2003
"Write badly about Jews and you became anti-Semi, Write against blacks - racist,
against gays -- homophob, about Russian - honest, brave, liberal journalist."
The current US policy of simultaneously antagonizing both China and Russia
will likely go down as one of the 21st century's more significant strategic miscalculations.
Assuming of course that it is a part of some strategy and not just bumbling incompetence.
Is Russia Being Driven Into the Arms of China
This page is written in hope to help Russian language students to understand the country they are
studying despite the level of brainwashing typical for MSM in the West. My own views on the problem
were influenced by Professor Stephen F. Cohen
Russophobia is not actually only about Russia. It is form of social control of US population. Energy
scapegoating is an important part of Propaganda machine, especially
war propaganda. Brainwashing people this way artificially (and temporary) increases social cohesion
(as any enemy would) and is practiced when the elite experience difficulties now in 2016. That's why
McCarthyism was dusted off and launched into mainstream. Overextending this trick has negative
consequences as Soviet Politburo discovered in starting from 70th. But with the crisis of neoliberalism
(2008 and then defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 are two stages of the same process) reinventing
"Red Scare" again became principally important, as a vital tool of controlling US (and in general, Western)
population.
It is also important to understand that Russophobia in many Western countries and first of all in
the USA, is an official policy. Much like in Carthago delenda est(Carthage must be destroyed)
was during certain period official policy in Rome.
American elite like Roman elite before need an enemy to unite nation as well as a smoke screen that
hides their own corruption. Russophibia definitely helps to suppress internal discontent caused by growing
inequality, unemployment, shrinking of the middle class and justifies the conversion of the country
into National Security State after Islamic threat became less potent. The mass production
of faux news demonizing Russians invokes depictions of Orwell's nefarious Eurasians from whom the populace
needed Big Brother for protection. Reincarnation of Ministry of Truth by Barack Obama is just another
stage of the same process -- now like Soviet Politburo, the US government is afraid that the US people
will be informed about the real events in the world. And that like BBC and Voice of America in
the past were used by Soviet population, at least some segments of Us population started using RT the
same way -- to understand where MSM lie to them.
In a similar vain, in the current international situation, I would consider Russophobia to be some
kind of Freudian projection, a politically correct way of replacing anti-Semitism. King of subconscious
substitution of Jews to a different, "more acceptable" (aka politically correct) nationality,
with all related consequences and moral repercussions that entail this equivalency. There is tragic
irony here as Russians in the past were guilty of anti-Semitism (like most European nations).
Now they probably might understand better what it means to be the target of anti-Semitism.
As Arkadiy Rukh observed (cited from
dr-piliulkin.livejournal.com
):
"Today, in the era of the total political correctness in the Western world there is only one
object for unpunished hatred, for realization of the inevitable phobias and other psychopathologies.
This is Russia. Today Russians occupy in the world that niche, which for many centuries was
occupied by the Jews: the object instinctive, illogical, animal hatred."
While in many respects Russophobia as a social phenomenon is somewhat similar to anti-Semitism it
is also a natural by-product of American Exeptionalism
as Russia refuses to accept the role of vassal that the US elite designated to them after the collapse
of the USSR (the role which was temporary successfully implemented under drunk Yeltsin) . In this sense
if it a condemnation of the revolt against "inevitable" in the eyes of the US elite world order --
the global neoliberal empire led by the USA. That also explains the level of bitterness involved.
Russophobia became so fashionable in Western neoliberal MSM when Russia under Putin became an obstacle
on the creation of the global, dominated by the USA neoliberal empire. That resistance to "neoliberal
project" (although weak and inconsistent -- under Putin Russia became a member of WTO and Medvedev in
general is a 'soft" neoliberal, almost a pro-Western comprador) also generates considerable amount of
hate. Pages of European and American newspapers and their comments columns, are packed with expressions
such as
"Putin is the new Hitler";
The "Russia is a primitive country that should be contained at all costs";
"All Russian are mobsters";
"Russians must pay the price for support of the Putin regime",
The hysterical claim that "Putin is Stalin, Jr.,
Let's restart the Cold War"
and other similar cliché that clearly remind German propaganda against Jews. This anti-Russian hysteria
also helps to erase Snowden revelations from Western collective memory.
In other words the hatred of Russia now is "a new normal" for the US neoliberal establishment
and controlled by this establishment MSM. How and for what reasons did this happen? The first
thing to understand is that this is not a new phenomenon. British elite were adamantly Russophobic for
a long time, several centuries:
The historian J. H. Gleason, in his 1950 book The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain,
characterized the nineteenth-century English public’s “antipathy toward Russia” as the “most
pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook on the world abroad.”
The sentiment, Gleason concluded, was concocted by a manipulative, imperial-minded elite—and
was off base, anyway, since Britain’s foreign policy was actually “more provocative than Russia’s”
in this period. Others concur. “The world champion imperialists of modern history, the British,
were in a permanent state of hysteria about the chimera of Russia advancing over the Himalayas to
India,”
While observations of Arkadiy Rukh are, in my opinion, absolutely correct (the article I cited above
is pretty interesting too and contains a valuable discussion) I would add a more recent neoliberal
edge of this problem (The
Vineyard of the Saker):
The historical roots of the Russophobia of the American elites
Having said all of the above, its actually pretty simple to understand why Russia in general,
and Putin in particular, elicits such a deep hatred from the Western plutocracy: having convinced
themselves that they won the Cold War they are now facing the double disappointment of a rapidly
recovering Russia and a Western economic and political decline turning into what seems to be a slow
and painful agony.
In their bitterness and spite, Western leaders overlook the fact that Russia has nothing to do
with the West's current problems. Quite to the contrary, in fact: the main impact the collapse
of the Soviet Union on the US-run international economic system was to prolong its existence by creating
a new demand for US dollars in Eastern Europe and Russia (some economists - such as Nikolai
Starikov - estimate that the collapse of the USSR gave an extra 10+ years of life to the US dollar).
In the past, Russia has been the historical arch-enemy of the British Empire. As for Jews - they
have always harbored many grievances towards pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia. The Revolution of
1917 brought a great deal of hope for many East-European Jews, but it was short lived as Stalin defeated
Trotsky and the Communist Party was purged from many of its Jewish members. Over and over again Russia
has played a tragic role in the history of the Ashkenazi Jews and this, of course, has left a deep
mark on the worldview of the Neocons who are all deeply Russophobic, even today. Somebody might object
that many Jews are deeply grateful for the Soviet Army's liberation of Jews from the Nazi concentration
camps or for the fact that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel. But in both
cases, the country which is credited with these actions is the Soviet Union and not Russia
which most Ashkenazi Jews still typically associate anti-Jewish policies and values.
It is thus not surprising that both the Anglo and the Jewish elites in the US would harbor
an almost instinctive dislike for, and fear of, Russia, especially one perceived as resurgent or
anti-American. And the fact is that they are not wrong in this perception: Russia is most definitely
resurgent, and the vast majority of the Russian public opinion is vehemently anti-American, at least
if by "America" we refer to the civilizational model or economic system.
... ... ...
Considering the never ending barrage of anti-Russian propaganda in the western corporate media
one could wonder how strong anti-Russian feelings are in the West. This is really hard to measure
objectively, but as somebody born in Western Europe and who has lived a total of 15 years in the
USA I would say that anti-Russian sentiment in the West is very rare, almost non-existent. In the
USA there have always been strong anti-Communist feelings - there still are today - but somehow most
Americans do make the difference between a political ideology that they don't really understand,
but that they dislike anyway, and the people which in the past used to be associated with it.
US *politicians*, of course, mostly hate Russia, but most Americans seem to harbor very little
bad feelings or apprehension about Russia or the Russian people. I explain that by a combination
of factors.
First, since more and more people in the West realize that they are not living in a democracy,
but in a plutocracy of the 1%, they tend to take the official propaganda line with more than a grain
of salt (which, by the way, is exactly what was happening to most Soviet people in the 1980s). Furthermore,
more and more people in the West who oppose the plutocratic imperial order which impoverishes and
disenfranchises them into corporate serfs are quite sympathetic to Russia and Putin for "standing
up to the bastards in Washington". But even more fundamentally, there is the fact that in a bizarre
twist of history Russia today stands for the values of the West of yesterday: international law,
pluralism, freedom of speech, social rights, anti-imperialism, opposition to intervention inside
sovereign states, rejection of wars as a means to settle disputes, etc.
In the case of the war in Syria, Russia's absolutely consistent stance in defense of international
law has impressed many people in the USA and Europe and one can hear more and more praise for Putin
from people who in the past has deep suspicions about him.
Russia, of course, is hardly a utopia or some kind of perfect society, far from it, but it has
taken the fundamental decision to become a *normal* country, as opposed to being a global empire,
and any normal country will agree to uphold the principles of the "West of yesterday", not
only Russia. In fact, Russia is very un-exceptional in its pragmatic realization that to uphold these
principles is not a matter of naive idealism, but a sound realistic policy goal. People in the West
are told by their rulers and the corporate media that Putin in an evil ex-KGB dictator who is a danger
for the US and its allies, but as soon as these people actually read or listen to what Putin actually
says they find themselves in a great deal of agreement with him.
In another funny twist of history, while the Soviet population used to turn to the BBC, Voice
of America or Radio Liberty for news and information, more and more people in the West are turning
to Russia Today, Press TV, or Telesur to get their information. Hence the panicked reaction
of Walter Isaacson, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the US outfit overseeing US
media directed at foreign audiences, who declared that "we can't allow ourselves to be out-communicated
by our enemies. You've got Russia Today, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's TeleSUR, and of course, China
is launching an international broadcasting 24-hour news channel with correspondents around the world".
Folks like Isaacson know that they are slowly but surely loosing the informational battle for the
control of the minds of the general public.
And now, with the entire Snowden affair, Russia is becoming the safe harbor for those political
activists who are fleeing Uncle Sam's wrath. A quick search on the Internet will show you that more
and more people are referring to Putin as the "leader of the Free World" while other are collecting
signatures to have Obama give his Nobel Prize to Putin. Truly, for those like myself who have actually
fought against the Soviet system it is absolutely amazing to see the 180 degree turn the world has
taken since the 1980s.
Western elites - still stuck in the Cold War
If the world has radically changed in the last 20 years, the Western elites did not. Faced with
a very frustrating reality they are desperately trying to re-fight the Cold War with the hope of
re-winning it again. Hence the never ending cycle of Russia-bashing campaigns I mentioned at the
beginning of this post. They try to re-brand Russia as the new Soviet Union, with oppressed minorities,
jailed or murdered dissidents, little or no freedom of speech, a monolithic state controlled media
and an all seeing security apparatus overseeing it all. The problem, of course, is that they are
20 years late and that these accusations don't stick very well with the western public opinion and
get exactly *zero* traction inside Russia. In fact, every attempt at interfering inside Russian political
affairs has been so inept and clumsy that it backfired every single time. From the absolutely futile
attempts of the West to organize a color-coded revolution in the streets of Moscow to the totally
counter-productive attempts to create some kind of crisis around homosexual human rights in Russia
- every step taken by the western propaganda machine has only strengthened Vladimir Putin and his
the "Eurasian Sovereignists" at the expense of the "Atlantic Integrationist" faction inside the Kremlin.
There was a deep and poignant symbolism in the latest meeting of the 21
APEC countries
in Bali. Obama had to cancel his trip because of the US budget crisis while Putin was treated to
a musically horrible but politically deeply significant rendition of "Happy birthday to you!" by
a spontaneous choir composed of the leaders of the Pacific Rim countries. I can just imagine
the rage of the White House when they saw "their" Pacific allies serenading Putin for his birthday!
... ... ...
On one side we have the 1%, the Anglo imperialists and the Ziocons, while on the other we have
the rest of the planet, including potentially 99% of the American people. If it is true that at this
moment in time Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists are the most powerful and best organized faction
of the worldwide resistance to the Empire, they are far from being central, or even less so, crucial,
to it. Yes, Russia can, and will, play its role, but only as a normal country amongst many
other normal countries, some small and economically weak like Ecuador, other huge and powerful like
China. But even small Ecuador was "big enough" to grand refuge to Julian Assange while China seems
to have asked Snowden to please leave. So Ecuador is not that small after all?
It would be naive to hope that this "de-imperialization" process of the USA could happen without
violence. The French and British Empires collapsed against the bloody backdrop of WWII, while did
the Nazi and Japanese Empires were crushed under a carpet of bombs. The Soviet Empire collapsed with
comparatively less victims, and most of the violence which did take place during that process happened
on the Soviet periphery. In Russia itself, the number of death of the mini civil war of 1993 was
counted in the thousands and not in the millions. And by God's great mercy, not a single nuclear
weapon was detonated anywhere.
So what will likely happen when the US-Ziocon Empire finally collapses under its own weight? Nobody
can tell for sure, but we can at least hope that just as no major force appeared to rescue the Soviet
Empire in 1991-1993, no major force will attempt to save the US Empire either. As David Rovic's puts
it so well, the big weakness of the 1% which rule the US-Ziocon Empire is that "they are a tiny
minority and we are everywhere".
In the past 20 years the US and Russia have followed diametrically opposed courses and their roles
appears to have been reversed. That "pas de deux" is coming to some kind of end now. Objective circumstances
have now again placed these two countries in opposition to each other, but this is solely due to
the nature of the regime in Washington DC. Russian leaders could repeat the words of the English
rapper Lowkey and declare "I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me!" and they could potentially
be joined by 99% of Americans who, whether they already realize it or not, are also the victims of
the US-Ziocon Empire.
In the meantime, the barrage of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns will continue unabated simply
because this seems to have become a form of psychotherapy for a panicked and clueless western plutocracy.
And just as in all the previous cases, this propaganda campaign will have no effect at all.
It is my hope that next time we hear about whatever comes next after the current "Greenpeace"
campaign you will keep all this in mind.
During the "cold War" the "old" US elite behaved more or less reasonable and tried to avoid unnecessary
confrontation. Several moments were clear exception (Korea War, Cuban crisis, Vietnam war and support
of radical political Islam in Afghanistan), but all-in-all it was kind of policy of "peaceful coexistence"
(live and give other chance to live), not of an outright "all out" confrontation. Intelligence agencies
behaves more provocatively, especially CIA in Europe, which organized and trained Nazi collaborators
for the resistance to the possible Soviet invasion, and subsequent guerilla movement against Soviet
occupation.
Also in case of JFK assassination, the patsy was chosen in a way that makes it easy to implicate
Russia.
but those were exception, rather then the rule. Probably the memory of the WWII still played
some role in such restrain. But eventually a new generation of US elite, the elite did not have WWII
experience come to power.
This new US elite tried hard to colonize Russia instead of making it a valuable partner after
dissolution of the USSR. Bill Clinton and Larry Summers are two good example of this behaviour. This
adventurism backfired. This was probably the first blunder, the blunder make by Clinton administration
-- the first administration with a lot of neocons onboard (we all remember unforgettable female neocon
Madeleine Albright).
Subsequent administration also demonstrated strong neocon influence (actually neocons, such as
Paul Wolfowitz dominated Bush II administration foreign
policy) and due to it made several strategic blunders such as invasions in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya. And that despite the fact the Russia provided great help in Afghan operation, as it
essentially controlled (and armed) the North Alliance against Taliban.
Obama administration essentially continued Bush II foreign policy without major changes. The only
change was that is did was more double-dealing. It did get Russia into a trap, when Medvedev government
abstain in UN Security council votes for Libyan resolution (which was a disguised justification of NATO
military intervention), which opened the way to the occupation of Libya and killing of colonel Kaddafi
("We came, we saw, he died"). Obama administration also masterfully played Iran card against Russia,
crashing oil prices three times (from $120 to $30) from the second half of 2014 to January 2016 and
keeping oil prices below $50 per barrel (on average) all 2016 (Russia needs approximately $50-$55 to
balance the state budget).
It also outplayed Russia in Ukraine tuning this county into nationalistic enclave extremely hostile
to Russia (see "Fuck the EU": neocons show EU its real place
). And then to add insult to injury introduced sanctions against Russia.
Obama might be not a great president,
but he for sure is one of the greatest hypocrites in world history.
But those attacks as well as a clear attempt to encircle Russia in Europe backfired: if you pursue
containment of China and at the same time introduce sanctions against Russia it is only natural that
these countries will become closer political partners. From the point of view of traditional American
and any other political logic, actions that contribute to the rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing,
are, to put it mildly, unwise. And that what Obama administration archived. This is the main legacy
of Obama administration in foreign policy.
Russian elite for too long was trying to please the Western colleagues. They swallowed completely
unacceptable things. They resigned to NATO expansion. Even after the bombing of Yugoslavia, which was
a clear violation of international law, they still viewed the USA a friendly nation and hoped for the
best. Another problem was that Russia was too weak at the moment, kind of semi-colony of the USA (and
Yeltsin regime was clearly a comprador regime, no question about it). But at this point attitude
to the USA start changing to negative. After Ukrainian coup d'état of February 2014 (Maydan Revolution,
as it is called in the West) this change only accelerated. In other words huge amount of political goodwill
that existed in Russia after dissolution of the USSR was completely squandered in less then 30 years.
That's an amazing art of making enemies from friends.
But at the end of Obama administration Russia just stopped to trust the USA. At all. They view Obama
as treacherous and extremely dangerous imperialist, who will not stop at anything by promoting the Us
domination. That means that they now view the USA as a geopolitical gangster, which is violating
any laws in impunity using classic "might makes right" principle. That's a dangerous view and dangerous
situation for the USA. This is another geopolitical blunder of the US elite.
I never was a Russian citizen, but I was and still am interested in Russian politics and, especially,
culture. I think that it is a European culture in its essence. Very interesting and very rich. Which
was able to survive years of Soviet rule. So attempt of isolate Russia from Europe attempted by Obama
neocons (see Nulandgate), following classic "device and conquer
strategy of British Empire, might be a mistake.
Neocons defined Russia as the main threat. In other words deterrence of Moscow became the strategic
goal of the USA foreign policy, which is essentially a
neocon foreign policy, the policy of obtaining
and maintaining the world domination at all costs. That means that the efforts to explicitly shape
the USA public opinion to see Russia as the key geopolitical enemy are dictated by priorities of the
USA foreign policy, which is defined by neocons.
The role of skepticism
My negative attitude to distortions and clearly orchestrated by White house anti-Russian campaign
in the USA press reflects my natural skepticism. I am not content with typical coverage of Russia in
the USA press which reminds me the caricature on the USA coverage by Soviet press (which at the time
had higher standard of living the people of the USSR and low level of unemployment). I consider
hysteric Russophobia that is now practiced to be simplistic and counterproductive policy which
serves to promote equally shortsighted global imperial policy that benefits only the US financial oligarchy.
Policy that has considerable cold-war inertia and that is damaging to the USA long term interests. Most
journalists are simply behave like paid attack dogs (a good example here is Mr. Wallace:
his interview of Putin was an insult
to the American people; Wallace actually tried to lecture Vladimir Putin).
Here I collected some of the authors who try to see more long term approach and try to present their
own understanding of the complex problems related to previous US attempt to colonize Russia after the
dissolution of the USSR. Or at least advice a more realistic US foreign policy toward Russia.
Of course it is nice to squash the old geo-political enemy like a bug and I would be the first
to admit that under Yeltsin West came close to this scenario. Criminal privatization of Russian companies
was hugely successful attempt to put an end to the Russia as an independent country. Similar strategy
was by-and-large successful in other USSR republics like Ukraine, Georgia and especially Baltic countries
creating what can be called New Latin America.
But after Putin came to power, the attempts to convert Russia into yet another Latin American country
became gradually reversed (although this process is some areas went too far and to reverse it completely
is very difficult). As Ira Straus aptly put it in her letter
Russia, U.S. Media:
Nowadays attacking Russia has a politically correct tinge to it, since Russia is a white Christian
country. By contrast, attacking China still suffers from being susceptible to counter-charges of
racism and anti-Communism. Perhaps this is the source of the strange double standard in which Russia
is attacked just about any day for just about anything while China is virtually ignored day after
day, month after month for the same and far worse.
Attacking Russia is especially "correct" when it is a matter attacking a Republican Administration
for being soft on a Russia that is beating up on Muslims. One doubts that much of the American public
shares the media's sensibilities on this. Picture bubba listening as Dan Rather launches into Russia
for beating up on Muslim Chechens; he'll probably be telling himself, "there the liberal media go
again, standing up for our enemies and blaming our allies the Russians for fighting back". Among
Americans who write about politics, only Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter dare to say such things, but
many more think it, in whole or in part.
The importance of adversarial culture for the media can be seen from the Bush I administration,
which truly was anti-Russian. The media bashed Bush I for this; it became ambivalent on Russia, taking
on a more pro-Russian hue than any time before or since. As soon as Clinton got a pro-Russian reputation,
the media switched back to Russia-bashing mode. It was Clinton-bashing that was the real point.
In other words, the media should not be taken as a barometer of U.S. government policies on Russia.
It is more often an indicator of the opposite.
What does it matter? A lot. The media drumbeat against Russia has an enormous impact on
public policy, not only in the US but in every Western country, and in Russia itself. It makes it
hard to think clearly, or even to see clearly. It fosters and fans conflict. It promotes a tit for
every tat.
First, the effects on Russians. The media play an enormous role in convincing them that we're
an enemy. They can see CNN, BBC and other Western media daily, at length; they hear from our government
only rarely, and practically never from the American people. They can see the Western media's implicit
premises far more clearly than the media themselves do. Mistakenly assuming these premises to represent
Western policy, they draw what would be the logical conclusion: that we are their enemy. If Russia
does in turn become an enemy again, the media will have been a major cause of it.
Second, effects on Western policy-making are just as damaging. Instead of helping the Western
governments do their thinking, the media block out most of the space for it. They make it
harder for the West to think out loud about such matters as how to build active alliance relations
with Russia, or how to overcome the remaining Cold War standoffs. They make it harder to follow a
steady course where cooperation has been agreed, They have done much to cause the West to be an unreliable
partner for Russia, an unreliability that democrats in Russia noted with profound regret throughout
the 1990s. They prioritize conflicting interests over shared interests, encouraging every minor divergence
of interest to grow into a major opposition. Their audience ratings flourish on conflict; and no
longer fearing it as risking war or nuclear incineration, they promote it shamelessly.
If we end up with a new Cold War -- and the risk is becoming a real one -- it won't be a small
thing. It would mean a nuclear superpower once again ranged against us and the world plunged back
into a bipolar disorder, only in more unstable conditions. In that case, the media will no doubt
turn around and denounce as "reckless" those who carry out their painful duties in the conflict.
The truly reckless ones, however, will have been those in this era who so freely did so much to bring
it on.
My personal views are close to views expressed by Anatoly Karlin in
About Da Russophile
As regards Russian politics, I make no secret that I’m a pro-Putin conservative. That said,
my views are moderate – while Western media coverage of Russia may be woefully biased and frequently
malicious, there are certainly plenty of things to criticize about Russia and Russians.
However, they must be grounded in in statistics, an appreciation of the viewpoints of ordinary
Russians, and a judicious comparative perspective (which is NOT equivalent to "moral relativism"
or "whataboutism" as many of the more hardcore Russophobe propagandists claim).
I think that the Western MSM fails on all three counts:
Their journalists tend to obfuscate facts and concrete numbers with rumors and assumptions;
they share their biases with those of the liberal opposition who are their most frequent interlocutors,
and reflect an ignorance of the broad ideological diversity across Russian politics and media;
and they frequently condemn Russia for things that just as prevalent or even more so in countries
considered Western and democratic.
This blog concerns with calling them out on their lies. As the one-time Guardian chief editor
C.P. Scott once said, "Comment is free but facts are sacred." While his newspaper has retreated
from this vision in practice, I maintain that it’s the most elegant encapsulation of what real journalism
(and punditry, blogging, etc) should all be about.
...I consider Charles de Gaulle to have done a great job, and consider Putin to be a comparable
figure in vision and stature.
Outside obvious "Lebensraum"
motives, it looks like western hate towards Russia rests on some deep inadequacy syndrome. Russia is
supposed to be some has-been power that is now of no consequence, yet it gets way more attention than
such a worthless state would merit. The amount of negative coverage since
Sochi Olympics
is bordering on war hysteria. That's dangerous pass as ideas became material things when they penetrate
deep into conscience of nation. Hate eventually tends to materialize.
The amount of negative coverage since
Sochi Olympics
is bordering on war hysteria. That's dangerous pass as ideas became material things when they
penetrate deep into conscience of nation. Hate eventually tends to materialize.
Russophobia as persistent policy of the US government and US media. And all this talk about Russia
aggressiveness, and carefully orchestrated related war hysteria in MSM is pure projection. It is the
USA which is the most aggressive international player on the world stage.
Russophobia is the unofficial but persistent set of behavioral patterns of the US government and
US media. It is clear that US tried to weaken and possibly dismember Russia out of geopolitical considerations
which represents a real threat to the US world hegemony. This idea on which the US elite is hell bent
since end of WWII and there were even plans to bomb Russia just after end of WWII.
It is the only military power that can annihilate large part of the continental USA, But there is
something deeper here. It is also an attempt to unify nation, which under neoliberalism became much
less coherent whole and in which 99% of the population hates the top 1% and the level of this hate is
increasing, especially in minorities and inner cities.
Russophobia is a crucial part of the US foreign policy. In this respect the US foreign policy is
so messianic
that it reminds me Soviet foreign policy (with the substitution of "triumph of democracy" for "triumph
of communism") and I wonder if the USSR really was a defeated party in the Cold War. This mentality
of "export of revolution" is the integral part of mentality of the US elite. The difference with Trotskyism,
if exists, is minor, and the key difference between Trotskyism and the US flavor of messianism probably
is connected with the smell of oil which radically increases the urge to democratize a particular country.
In any case attempt to export democracy in Russia never stopped since 1991 and under Yeltsin were so
successful that the country lost more in industrial production then during the second World War and
poverty became a norm for more then 50% of the population.
Carthago delenda est(Carthage must be destroyed)
attitude exists partially because the Western elites hate resource nationalists independently
whether those nationalists are leftist or conservative. Fighting resource nationalists tooth-and-nail
is an important, may be even critical part of neoliberal doctrine.
The latter is a civic religion
in the USA. That means the Russophobia in the USA has strong religious component, and is supported by
500 pound gorilla of the US elite propaganda machine. In other words there is a strong, consistent tendency
of demonization of Russia (Paul Starobin,
The National Interest Blog, August 28, 2014):
In any case, our taste for a country—favorable or unfavorable—shouldn’t dictate our foreign policy,
which is properly shaped by a cool calculation of our national interest. On these terms, America
is right to resist Russia if Putin seems truly bent on bullying his way to a redrawn map of Europe,
but also right to try to keep working with Russia on matters of mutual concern such as Islamic militancy.
And that same calculation will hold when Putin, as must happen eventually, exits the Kremlin, willingly
or unwillingly, whether replaced by a new autocrat or a more democratic figure. Today’s heightened
tension between the United States and Russia, conceivably the first chapter of a new cold war, with
Europe as ambivalent as ever about its role, underscores that Russia is likely to remain one of America’s
most vexing and formidable diplomatic challenges for a long time to come.
So the future of the presentation of Russia as a hodgepodge of unflattering stereotypes seems
bright. The naive liberal notion that the world has a teleological disposition toward a progressive
end—if only holdouts like Russia would get with the program—is deeply entrenched. Headlines datelined
in Russia—on corrupt oligarchs, or on control-freak KGB-generation political operators—will continue
to nourish sweeping criticism of Russians, from their leaders on down, as primitive and psychologically
ill. Probably no other nation is so easy (or so safe) to caricature.
And the “Russia Is Doomed” syndrome is bound to survive because Russia, alas, still matters. The
object of such concentrated anxiety over the centuries, far from heading down a path to obscurity,
remains a global force and impossible to ignore. So the worries will live on, too, as will the sublimated
wish to efface Russia. But perhaps the good news for the critics is precisely that Russia is not
about to go away. They will have plenty of grist for their mill for decades to come.
The issue is whether comprador elites subservient to the US are in power, or more nationalistic "national
sovereignty" guys. It is true that a nationalist elite can be as predatory as a comprador elite, but
a reasonable degree of national sovereignty is a prerequisite for social justice and it is difficult
to raise standard of living if your resources are owned by transnationals. The latter automatically
became above the law and do what they want with impunity.
The Russophobic views on Russia can be summed up in three words: "There is no life there !" This
simple formula invoke the whole complex system of "corrupt
journalism patterns" and powerful propaganda mechanisms
polished during 45 years of Cold War. Those journalistic patterns causes most western journalists (not
without help of their political handlers as independent journalism in the USA is a joke) treat Russia
as a failed state. Not simply a country that temporary dropped out of the world civilization, but the
country is doomed to such a drop by the several immanent features such as "national character", climate,
landmass, religion, history, etc.
From Dr. MacFaul quotes above it is clear that in the American media and among American politicians
Russia occupies a marginal position. After the Soviet Union is gone, they mostly cares about getting
assets on pennies per dollar (behaviour of criminals like Mr. Browder, whom McFaul loves so much, exemplifies
such an attitude) and to lesser extent about Russia military capabilities, which are still a risk. Although
I doubt that.
From the typical US behavior it looks like American politicians are not really interested in any
other aspect of Russian situation, other then energy resources (Khodorkovsky
is a new saint in the USA, probably for his failed attempt to sell Russia oil resources to US companies).
And he is new puppet in the show of finding the possibilities of regime change and installing a puppet
regime as they
unsuccessfully
tried in 2011-2012. They still miss Yeltsin drunk regime and Gaidar-Chubais neoliberal gang, which
almost converted Russia into kleptocracy
from which Putin tried gradually to extract it with great and not always successful efforts.
It all comes down to a set of cliché: Russia is corrupt (while in reality this is a immanent feature
of all neoliberal regimes and
first of all
the USA, the most corrupt neoliberal regime in existence) , does not respect human rights (unlike
Saudis) and does not play by the rules (unlike Libya rebels), is not democratic (unlike Qatar). Russia
seems to them so weak and uninteresting, not worthy of a real partnership dialogue. And is arrogant
enough not to agree with the status of vassal so she needs to be taken care of:
"To promote liberty requires first the containment and then the elimination of those forces
opposed to liberty, be they individuals, movements, or regimes. " - M. McFaul, The Liberty
Doctrine: Reclaiming the purpose of American power. Policy Review April & May 2002
The Liberty
Doctrine Hoover Institution
Such an ungrateful jerks, who jailed Dick Cheney best friend Khodorkovsky, squeezed this perfectly
honest guy, exemplary "the largest portfolio investor in Russia, British citizen
William Browder" (Who, BTW, was the USA citizen until recently, but suddenly changed his mind)
and so on and so forth. They should be "regime changed". It is like the relationship between schoolchildren,
when a bully see a threat on the school yard and acts preemptively.
The first thing that surprise me is a very well "coordinated" level of Russophobia demonstrated by
Western MSM. The degree of Russophobia in Western press varies very little be it Guardian, or NYT, or
BBC or WashPost. As financial oligarchy controls the MSM you can't expect anything different. They act
as a pack of dogs. Typical level is treating Russian as forever damned barbarians. Slightly more advanced
is treating Russia a legitimate playground for testing the controversial socio-economic doctrines like
shock therapy and a land were any foreign crook is entitled to get rich fast (like
Browder did ). But the essence is the same, no right for "national sovereignty", no right for any
"special way". Those concepts are simply outside a typical Western press journalists "template" that
their editors enforce.
Ridiculous comments populate the blogs, the op eds and the comment sections of most sites. But
what unsettles me more is the rabid Russian phobia (call it "Russophobia") which populates the
American press (liberal/conservative).
We never see things from the Russian side. It is always Putin who is up to no good, Vladimir,
the monster, the balding fool with no shirt flexing his muscles. This is not the Cold War, yet
we have not shed our Cold War biases.
Russophobia is a form of racism and studies of other forms of racism such as anti-Semitism are applicable
here.
It is a prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Russian people as an ethnic, religious,
or racial group. In Baltic states it is close to regime of Apartheid. In Ukraine it has a form of
suppression
of Russian language and culture
I have an impression on the personal level sincere and acute Russophobia (not to be mixed with Russophobia
as a official line ) can be a compensation mechanism (classic Adorno). I am not talking here about ideological
prostitution typical for MSM journalists. But on individual level it looks like projection not that
different from other national bigotry and the undisputable and provable fact is that the USA and, especially,
Great Britain MSM serves as an "Incubator of hatred" toward Russia. Of course this also tells something
very important about the US/GB governments.
I suspect that those who adopt Russophobia position not for money (let's call them "sincere Russophobes")
have a personality of sectants/fanatics in a very deep sense of this word. Or like Eric Hoffer called
them "True Believers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer).
For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is
everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own
image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all
we can concerning his nature and potentialities.
In a way sincere Russophobe's are almost extinct minority (but still can be found among Ukrainian
nationalists ;-).
There a legion of "Russophobes for money". People who are profiting personally from Russophobia nonsense
they spew. This is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest tools form the box. As
a result they try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living in such a disgusting way.
At best they are average with very few exceptions (Belkovski might be one exception). In a way we
can view it as a survival tactic of people with mediocre talent in conditions of high competition.
Similar displacement into obscure niches can be observed for mediocre people in other professions.
This "Russophobia for money" is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest tools
form the box. As a result they try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living in such
a disgusting way.
"Russophobia for money" is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest
tools form the box. As a result they try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living
in such a disgusting way.
Cold War II is rooted not in Ukrainian event (The EuroMaydan coup d'état
was organized by the USA and Western powers; Crimea was only a pretext) but is closely connected with
the neocon attempts to slow down the pace of Russia modernization and secure Russia status as resource
vassal of the USA. Here is a part of discussion from Kremlin Stooge that touch this theme in relation
to Skolkovo techno-park.
This is a very apt comment and I wish that your observation comes true. But the problem is
that as you :
"The forces arrayed against Russia are sufficiently formidable and sufficiently unrelenting
"
First of all the West is rich enough to finance substantial fifth column, especially fifth
column media (official $70 millions for support of NGO and "alternative" press is just
a tip of iceberg). That’s the essence of neo-colonialism do nothing new here. Also a large part
of elite is already linked to the West and is not interested in any confrontation. Nothing new
here too.
So the discussion about what level of state capitalism is beneficial (or where Medvedev should
stop with his "second liberalization") is complex and far from purely technical one. External
forces should be taken into account and once in a while liberalization companies to placate the
West are not completely bad idea no matter how you view neoliberalism: state capitalism requires
periodic "purges" (Stalin well understood that) and "liberalization" and, especially "fight
with corruption" provides perfect pretext for purges. If one looks at some Medvedev’s
actions from this angle and you might well come to conclusion that it might be not complete sell-off
but a more complex game.
In situation when you need to purge excesses of state capitalism West can serve as a natural
ally and in such situation slogan of cat Leopold "Rebyata davayte zhit’ druzhno" (Let’s
be friends) suddenly became politically viable at least among the pro-Western part of the elite.
And the idea of periodic moving the pendulum from "higher statism" to "higher
private enterprise support" in order to avoid stagnation, say, each seven-ten year period
is not completely absurd. The main question is whether the process runs out of control or not.
Another possible contention point is that sooner of later oil flow will start diminishing and
with it revenues will also start dropping. Currently there are too few industries that can replace
the flow the oil dollars. Attempt to revitalize some of the existing heavy industries under the
flag of liberalization, if done clever is not a bad idea.
And as much as everybody here hates neoliberalism it is very clear about who should be the
victim and provides an ideological justification for cruel actions against own population. Like
Bolshevism, it proved to be an extremely potent weapon of convincing population to act against
their own economic interests (see
What’s the matter with Kansas
for details). Perfect tool for the brainwashing "peasants" if you wish, very important when
"Pryanikov sladkih vsegna ne hvataet na vseh" (Okudzhava ).
April 13, 2011 at 8:50 pm I believe the oil money will go on for some time yet. Current practices
are sloppy and inefficient, and more oil could be realized with better, more modern techniques,
as well as new discoveries coming online. However, an early start on overhauling general business
practices would be time and money well spent.
Medvedev should draw a lesson from Skolkovo. This is a project he has personally sponsored
and touted as Russia’s official debut in the high-tech sector. Western response, overall,
has been withering and contemptuous, although some major commercial figures (such as Microsoft)
have offered early investment optimism. Collective opinion seems to be that Russia will
use the new tech city as a base from which to steal foreign technology secrets from investors,
or that it will be a dismal failure because Russians have no real ideas of their own.
The west is likely to greet other initiatives by Medvedev in the same manner – hearty laughter,
followed by offers to come in and make western-style changes for him, in exchange for certain
considerations.
You are right: Skolkovo is fuzzy (what exactly is "high-tech") initiative as first of all Medvedev
can’t abolish brain-drain and that what will happens with the most talented researchers. The only
realistic bait he has is blocking the companies from entering Russian market unless they provide
considerable degree of localization and require that some fraction of research be performed in
such parks. That’s a variant of policy that China successfully used. But if Russia joins WTO,
tariff barriers to protect domestic producers in vital sectors will be more difficult to erect.
At the same time autarky does not work either. So maneuvering between those Scylla of globalization
and Charybdis of autarky requires top political skills from the captain of the ship.
Some sectors of Russian heavy industry already are proved abroad and products already have
some competitive advantage and export markets. That’s where this comparative advantage needs to
be preserved and enhanced with help of techno-parks. State subsidized R&D is really important
here and can be provided via small university based local techno parks. This would an excellent
employment opportunity for most talented students who otherwise might emigrate and such parks
not necessary need any foreign participation. This is especially important if company is partially
state owned, as this along with having reps at the board that protects the investment. OK, I would
agree, that it’s not necessary need to be people on minister level. It would be sad if he really
wants not to reform or improve, but to dismantle state capitalism.
The real problem here that without oil revenue Russia gets into zugzwang. Hopefully, as you
noted, that will not be soon.
Yes, you’re right about Skolkovo; I did a piece on it awhile back (here)
and Chinese tech parks were cited as an example. It’s funny how the west is all gaga over China,
and just brushes off the fact that China has a considerably more predatory business model than
does Russia; China shamelessly raids the west for business information and constantly tests
them for weaknesses which might be exploited. But, obtusely, it’s Russia that’s held up
as the consummate corporate raider.
I believe if Russia were allowed to join the WTO, fewer barriers would be necessary. There’s
no reason foreign companies shouldn’t have to contribute to the local economy, but they should
receive tradeoffs as well such as low corporate tax rates, and that was one of the considerations.
Medvedev seems determined that Skolkovo will succeed, while some elements in the west are just
as determined it will be a failure. We’ll see. Russia is a world leader in medical research, and
I understand that will be a big part of Skolkovo as well.
It is difficult to say where Putin's brand of mixture of neoliberal and state capitalism get him
and Russian people. I would say that the answer is "reserved no". Currently Russia, while opposing the
US hegemony does not provide an alternative economic model. And that's the weakness of "Putinism".
Un amable lector de este blog ha realizado un resumen en inglés de nuestro artículo Las catedrales
del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar; es un resumen diferente al que nosotros hubiéramos hecho,
pero de interés sin duda alguna. Ha sido publicado como apoyo a una pregunta en un coloquio con el
economista ruso Mikhail Khazin organizado por The vineyard of the saker. Publicaremos aquí la respuesta.
Question: Does Russia represent an alternative to the current western economic/social model?
Or is this view an illusion based only on the conflict between some traditional vs. post-modern values?
/ Arturo
For context to the question I will provide a translation / paraphrase / summary of some key points
in the following article Las catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar
The article contains and numbers many more points (36 in total) but I have translated/summarized
only the first 14 (the rest is provided is a very raw translation --NNB)
Moscow cannot defeat the American plans – i.e. the Anglo Zionist world elite – without
contradicting the class interests of its own elites (Russian oligarchs): This is impossible
because the system of sanctions and the blocking of access to their accounts and assets in the
West generates such contradictions in the Russian power elites that, in practice, it prevents
them from reacting adequately; it puts them on their knees before the America.
Russia *could* resist those plans, since it possesses the strength, sense of identity,
historical memory and material resources to do so. But in order to do so, its ruling elites would
have to take measures that would affect their own class status within both the Russian system
and the international system. And we can see that these are measures they are not willing
to take. On the other hand, the Anglo Zionists suffer no such internal contradiction. Quite the
opposite, in fact: Their own interest as the supporting base of the globalist hyperclass necessarily
forces them to maintain the challenge to the end.
By the term Anglo Zionists, in this analysis, we mean the dominant power group whose territorial
and military base resides in the United States, and whose center originates in the historical
and social links of the Anglo-American oligarchies, branching off to other historical central
metropolis in Europe or other power centers in different parts of the world.
The concept is made up of two elements that must be explained: the first, the “anglo” reference,
has to do with the North American British connection [...] the second, the “zionist” reference,
has to do with the interconnection among the economic and financial power groups that maintain
various kinds of links with Israel. It is not so much a reference to ethnic origin, but rather
to orientations as groups or lobbies of political and economic interests. A good part of this
Zionist component consists of people who are neither Israelis nor Jews, but who feel identified
with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Britain and other countries. Thus the term “zionist”
referees here to an ideology, not to an ethnic origin.
The Anglo elites on both sides of the Atlantic have evolved from being national elites
to being the executive base of a world Hyperclass made up of individuals capable of exerting a
determining influence in the most powerful nation, the United States.
The result of the Anglo Zionist line of attack is that the contradiction and internal struggle
is now occurring in Moscow between those who have already chosen to sell out and those who have
not yet found the time to realize that a multipolar global capitalism is not viable.
In this context, recovering Crimea was a mirage, an illusion.
If we compare the implications of the Maidan coup in Kiev with the liberation of Crimea, we
see that the strategic defeat implicit in losing Ukraine as an ally is of such magnitude that
everything else pales by co s (all of them) in Kiev was so gigantic that its implications are
frightening. It was either a failure or something even worse. In any case, the Crimea affair was
merely a small episode in a confrontation that Russia is losing.
Russia arrived very late at modern capitalism, and that is why its current elite will
be unable to occupy a space among the globalist elite without paying the necessary toll, which
is none other than renouncing its territorial power base – its country and its access to
and control of its energy resources and raw materials.
Stubbornly maintaining the dispute in trying to obtain a multi-polar capitalism, leads necessarily
to a intra-capitalist confrontation, as it did in 1914-1918. And because of the nature of the
current actors, nuclear powers … it brings the conflict to 2.0 war versions (color revolutions)
All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based on similar strategies
(i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because Russia does
not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. It
can only elicit some empathy from those who reject the American domination, but here the class
contradictions come into play again, because it is not enough to oppose Washington merely on political-military
grounds, since the key to global power resides in the financial and military structures that
enable global control and plunder: World Trade Organization, IMF, Free Trade agreements, World
Bank, NATO… these are entities in relation to which Russia only shows its displeasure at
not being invited to the table as an equal, not accepting that because it arrived late at modern
capitalism, it must play a secondary role. On the other hand, Russia is ignoring the deep contempt,
bordering on racism, that things Slavic generate among Anglo Zionist elites.
In order to be able to fight the 2.0 versions of war that are engineered today, an alternative
social model is needed. Alternative not only in regard to the postmodern vs. traditional
sets of values, but fundamentally in regard to the social model that stems from the modes of production.
In the postmodern vs. traditional conflict, Russia tends to align with the most reactionary values.
And in regard to the social struggle, they don’t want to enter that fray because they renounced
it long ago. They renounced the entire Soviet Union, which they destroyed from within.
The contradictions and the dialectical nature of reality have their own logic, however. Thus,
a coup in Kiev and the widespread appearance of Nazi symbols in the streets of Ukraine was all
that it took to induce a spontaneous reaction in the Slavic world. The popular resistance in the
Donbass took strong root thanks to the historic memory of the people’s of the old USSR and its
war against fascism.
If Russia were to abandon Novorossia to the oligarchs and their mafias, the world’s “left”
– or whatever remains of it — would come to scorn post-Soviet Russia even more than it already
does. In the months following the brave action in Crimea and the heroic resistance in the Donbass,
many people around the world looked to Moscow in search of some sign that it would support the
anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic resistance, even if only as an act of self-defense by Moscow
against the globalist challenge. If it finally abandons Novorossia, the price in terms of loss
of moral prestige will be absolute.
A support of the left has not been sought, but that is a collateral consequence of the character
of class struggle open that has been given in the Donbas, where Russia has been forced to provide
some assistance that would prevent the genocide at the hands of the fascist Ukrainian.
Cuando say left, we refer logically to the one who has expressed their support to the struggle
of people in the Donbas, as it is very difficult to consider the "left" to those who have preferred
to remain silent or to have directly been complicit in the assault, and the coup in Kiev.
The degradation of the left as politically active social force is very intense, their structures
are embroiled in the collapse, or in the confusion, when not literally corrupt. Then related to
both socialist parties since 1914 and the communists, at least from the time of fracture of 1956.
The social changes experienced in Europe with the systems of welfare state, based on the elevation
of the standard of living of the working population and the obtaining of social peace by sharing
the power with the trade unions are at the base of the post-industrial society and the resulting
profound changes of values.
The suicide of the USSR in 1989-93 marked a brutal global change , in which the balance which
was preserved during the cold war was broken. That led to the capitalist elite in the west, which
we are calling the Anglo-Zionists, to the suspension of the social pact (forced abandonment of
New Deal), that gave rise to the welfare state and the emergence stark reality of a global power
of capitalists without systemic opposition . Today the whole neoliberal globalization system of
capitalism is in danger by the depletion of the natural resources. And to sustain this mode of
production, they need to speed up territorial domination in the form of control and access to
resources of other countries. Now there no space in the global system for spaces, which are managed
autonomously even to a certain level.
The system of global domination, capitalism, ruling elites with a territorial basis in the
area of Anglo-American, global parasitic Hyperclass and depletion of resources, as well as cannibalization
of the other nations, in the midst of troika of crisis of climate change, peak of the energy and
raw materials shortages. those three factors that challenge the current globalization framework
... And the crisis of Novorossia, been demonstrated both impotence and the lack of real political
autonomy of Russian elite with the respect to the dominant power in neoliberal worlds order..
The new citizen movements in the western world are not so much resistance movements as samples
of the discontent of the middle classes in precarious position of marginalization and/or social
trance. This protest led to a "Maidans" which are not permanent and does not question the basis
of the system. The participants seems to believe that it is possible to restore the old good world
of the welfare state.
The western movements are brainwashed by messages emanating from the headquarters of Democratic
party of North America, the propaganda anarcho-capitalist and the various networks of ideological
interference, are managing to break the bonds of historical memory that unite the struggles of
the past with the present, de-ideologize the struggles and conflicts and to deny the tension left
and right, isolating the militants -- or simple citizens who feel identified with the values of
the left - of the masses who are suffering in the first place casualisation. At the heart of this
new "left" are leaders that are co-opted voices, pseudo-intellectuals who destroy the words and
empty of content of key concepts in a way that the alienation of the masses demonstrate at the
language itself, thus preventing putting a real name to social process and things, and to identify
the social phenomena.
Viva to Russia, which the only country which eve in a weak form decided to fight neoliberal
world order and position itself as an anti-imperialist force... It is interesting to observe the
current great moral confusion in political landscape of the societies in decay. Confusion which
have been stimulated by Moscow actions. As the result some the far-right groups that are simultaneously
anti-US that anti-Russian now support Moscow. Also some part of Russia far-right political groups
got the sympathy and support of factions of the anti EU far right forces in France, the Nazis
of the MSR in Spain, and from small groups of euro-asianists. This line of political affiliation
will allow them to simply join the Russia failure [to find alternative to monopolar neoliberal
capitalism] and might well discredit then more profoundly in the future.
The euro-asianists forces technically speaking are reactionary forces, neoliberal forces which
is comparable to the worst of the worst in the western world. Moreover, they do not have any way
to solve the main contradictions that arise in the current neoliberal model in the terms of class
and dominance of Anglo Zionist global elite.
Euro-Asianism is just a suitable ideology for the construction of Russian national idea for
those who seeks to achieve lease to life for Russia sovereignty on the world stage. It is the
actual proof that Russia has come too late to globalised capitalism and fascism...
Huttington and his war of civilizations cynically exploit this confrontation on Anglo Zionist
elite and newcomers, redefining it along the idea of the clash of civilizations which avoid using
the notion of class and thus is ideologically false. Alexander Duguin who promote similar ideas
quite seriously just shows the degree of degeneration of the Russian intelligentsia, which oscillates
between serving as comprador class to the global Anglo Zionist elite and the repetition (as a
farce, and with 75 years of delay ) of fascist reactionary revolutions in Western Europe, which
were phenomenon of the interwar period (rexistas in Belgium, Croix de feu in France, CruzFlechados
in Hungary, Requetés and Falangistas in Spain).
The globalist elite offered a solution formulated in class terms, as it could not be another
way: in the best cases, they proposes the co-optation to a handful of members of the Russian elite
as deserving members of the new global Hyperclass, but this path is opened only the very very
rich, and the pre-condition is the delivery of the country to plunder, where the global elite
certainly would have need of some compradors which will be more or less adequately compensated
depending on their achievements and sacrifices in the name of global neoliberal domination.
The part of the power elite of Russia, which managed to expel the western compradors of the
Yeltsin era, and rein in the oligarchs then, had tried with some success to regain control of
the territory of the country. The illusion of the members of this part of the power elite -- basically
the security services, both civil and military, and various synergies of those with the military-industrial
lobby -- is that it would be enough to neutralize the Russian fifth column of the Anglo Zionists
to take back control of their territorial base of power. this idea is going to be shredded into
pieces when it enter into contradiction with the reality of the class struggle and interests of
the elite at the global level. Russia is, for its size, influence, and resources, so huge that
a line of action based on the defense of its sovereignty strategic enters in collision with the
global power of neoliberalism. And that why it attracts disproportional reaction of the Anglo
Zionists
Supporters of Anglo Zionists that are ready to consent to a German-Russian alliance or Russia-EU
alliance that give the viability of a idea of mutually beneficial co-development of both Russia
and Europe are forgetting that such an action would require European sovereignty. Which is was
non-existent iether on the level of the EU, or on the level of member states. The penetration
of the Atlantism in Europe is already systemic. In the old European states there are still ancient
national traditions, which were based on the basis of cultural, industrial, economic, and political
identity. And they still run strong. But in the current situation for such states there no space
for the sovereignty as the dominant power bloc in the national elite as well as in EU elite are
Atlantists. Where this situation takes the Russian elite and the Russian state without confrontation?
A confrontation that they, on the other hand are not willing and are not able to pursue.
The multi-polar capitalist world had its lifespan which come to an end (exploded) in 1914.
In 2014, the globalization of the elites and the capital is of such magnitude that no serious
resistance is possible on the basis of some capitalist model. In those conditions the idea of
Russian elite ability to enforce change to multipolar version of the currently monopolar neoliberal
world is doomed to be a failure.
Zbigniew Brezinsky has raised things crudely and openly, unlike the ("fake") supporters of
perestroika, and their current heirs in Russia. Brezinsky know how to think in terms of the class
contradiction and knows perfectly well that the Russian oligarchy has directed its monetary
flows abroad, moved families abroad, and moved their investments abroad. That means that
Anglo Zionistscan disrupt any claim of sovereignty over the territory and resources
by simply pressing the local neoliberal elite, giving them to choose between their interests as
a class and their illusionary desire for sovereignty. Because in a globalized world, with its
brutal fight for the natural resources there is no possibility of maintaining both, except what
can be achieved in terms of direct anti-imperialist struggle. There is no space for the national
bourgeoisies in the XXI century. You can only have sovereignty if it is posed in terms of a rupture
with the actually existing neoliberal order of global capitalism, which, in its core is Anglo
Zionistsglobalization. This break does not have to be forced, but in terms of scientific
analysis of the social processes is a logical consequence of following this path one way or the
other. To claim sovereignty over their own resources and territory inevitably leads to confrontation,
and logical needs a break up and confront the Anglo Zionist empire. If you really want to achieve
the goal. And that fact imposes the logic of the relationships and balance of power in the world
today.
The claims of the BRIC countries -- to the extent that you do not question them -- is that
they have an alternative model to the dominant neoliberal capitalism model (Ango Zionist globalization
with the center in the USA) are doomed to be a failure. The efforts of the BRIC countries can
generate a lot of noise and discomfort for the West, but they can not break the global neoliberal
system. Those countries are rightfully fearful of their budget balances -- which are very fragile.
It can be even said that they are on their way to implosion sooner or later, due to the unbalanced
structure of their internal classes, including first of all their own elite.
The claim that it is possible to achieve the multipolar capitalist world (which Russia defends)
and which led to current Ukrainian crisis without confrontation is false. As soon as Russia wanted
to return to the global chessboard. as an independent player, they instantly saw opponents attacking
weak elements of their defense at the borders. Ukraine has been a defeat for Russia and the Crimea
is not a adequate compensation for loss of Ukraine. Now Novorossia is being sacrificed precisely
because the class contradictions that have emerged in Moscow and lack of desire of Russian elite
to go the bitter end.
The situation in the Donbas / Novorossia clearly shows the resignation of Moscow to the victory,
and their desire to avoid the clash with neoliberal world order. The fact is that Royal Dutch
Shell has already begun the fracking in the Donbas, the coup regime in Kiev are already internationally
accepted without reservations, the truce imposed in Novorossia has brought to its knees the armed
resistance to junta. All this leads way to deliver Novorossia to the hands of mafias sponsored
by the local oligarchs with friends in Kiev and Moscow.
Statement that the destiny of Russia was played in the Donbas is something more than a phrase,
It is a claim based on a reality, as the defeat of Novorossia would be the proof that Moscow had
not the will to struggle. The betrayal of the fighters and the hopes of Novorossia is the acceptance
of the defeat and might lead in the future to the victory to the Moscow Maidan, the same alliance
of compradors and nationalists using which as storm troopers the globalist elite achieved their
goal in Ukraine. If Novorossia is defeated, they can expect being able to push a puppet into the
Kremlin the same way. And not without reason. This summer, the heroic struggle of the militia
of the Donbas was the key element that forced the changes of the script designed for Kiev as well
as diminished chances of successful application of the same methods in Moscow. The Minsk Agreements
and the truce imposed by them are putting Novorossia on its knees, allowing for its destruction,
but this time at the hands of their allies. Sad spectacle for the Russian security services, which
were effective enough to organize the Donbas resistance, but now are useless and powerless before
the neofascist Kiev junta.
The struggle of the Donbas does not correspond to the strategic interests of the Russian elite.
They have been forced to intervene to prevent the horror of the mass murder of the population
of the Donbas at the hands of the extreme right. But the dream of a Donbas free of oligarchs and
with a sovereign state, committed to social justice for workers on this Slavic land are completely
incompatible with the post-soviet status quo. Only to the extent that there is a significant faction
of Russian elite aware of the contradictions of the global neoliberal game and who put their sense
of patriotism first can lead them to face the challenge that they face. Only in this case there
would be any possibility of resistance; I would say patriotic resistance, because we already know
no one at the top is able to think in terms of class.
While very unlikely - there can be a move from February to October in Novorossia. You would
say impossible. But he insurrection of the Donbas in March, logically was "February". In order
to achieve victory, to take full control over the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk needs creation
of the Revolutionary Military Council and suspension of the upcoming elections. which looking
to be a smokescreen for capitulation to junta. They need to declare that they are ready to resist
to the end. This output would be desperate move, without a doubt, and would represent the equivalent
of a new "October". The event which of it occurs would force Moscow to show their cards to their
own population. And perhaps it can help to generate a pulse necessary for the organization of
the fight with Anglo Zionists empire between the towers of the Kremlin. That would move the fight
toward more patriotic and popular goals, But this presuppose a lot of assumptions and first of
all that such a "Kremlin tower", which is capable of emitted such a pulse, exists. Only in this
case we can talk about achieving a real sovereignty. As Vasily Záitsev in Stalingrad suggested:
"Maybe we're doomed, but for the moment we are still the masters and lords of our land." In Novorossia
there are plenty of fighters who would agree with Záitsev, but they certainly lack political direction
and, now the lack the support of Kremlin.
The Russian objective is achieving a multipolar capitalism with a Russia united under a nationalist
ideology based on the manipulation of patriotic sentiment, Orthodoxy and various Slavic myths.
This objective is being challenged by the reality of the conflict, which should be defined in
terms of geopolitical goals. The reality is that the Russian elite would be allowed to control
their population as they wish, provided they renounce its sovereignty over territory and resources,
renounce their physical power base, i.e. homeland. This is the nature of the challenge. Putin
is mistaken if he thinks that the Grand Patriarch has the answer in their holy books. There is
not enough incense in the Kremlin cathedrals to mask that reality.”
Now let's discuss attempts to demonize Putin by Western MSM. They can be understood only in context
of rabid Russophobia of US neocons and their poodles in GB and other Western countries (especially in
Germany).
Being tactful of Putin is one thing that I would not criticize the US press for ;-). If only because
the track record disqualify them from lecturing, but because one simple fact: I remember how they covered
the Chechen disaster and how they covered Iraq invasion by the USA. I strongly dislike Chechen war,
as do most Russians. However, it is true that Chechen fundamentalists financed by Saudis have killed
hundreds of Caucasian and Russian civilians and were a real threat to the Russian society, whereas the
Iraqis were no practical threat to the USA.
Another problem with demonizing Putin is that no one in the US political system is willing to criticize
the policies of Boris Yeltsin, which ruined the majority of Russian people, falsified elections and
included criminals in his inner circle under close guidance of the USA. Sometime it looks to me that
the real Axis of Evil runs somewhere between K Street and Constitution Avenue.
And in addition most of US neocons who dominated the USA foreign policy establishment sincerely consider
themselves the only game in town. While understanding very little, or absolutely nothing about other
countries. And that is statement is equally applicable to neocons dominated MSM such as NYT and Wash
Post. American exeptionalism is uniquely blinding phenomenon.
It is actually pretty sad to read the infinite low of articles written without any desire to understand
the complex situation in modern Russia. Neocons analytics in regard to Russia is nauseating propaganda.
The logic behind such articles is invariably hostile. Moscow either weak or repressive or both. If Moscow
sees some processes as a threat, it is racist, if it just lets it happen, it is weak.
No good solution for Russia ever exists according to these people. And it would be better for Russia
and the rest of the world if it disappears from the face of Earth as quickly as possible.
Another influential part of world Russophobic community are Apartheid regimes established in Baltic
countries with the direct help of the USA government and, especially, USA emigrant organizations. Western
Ukraine also fit this scenario (after EuroMaidan putsch Western Ukrainian when far right nationalists
came to power).
Baltic countries refuse to provide citizenship to people of different ethnicity who lawfully lived
in them during the USSR period (which lasted half a century or so). Here is an insightful take on Russophobia
from veteran Novosty journalist by Pyotr Romanov
Ability to write about Russophobia dispassionately is similar to the ability to maintain dignity
when somebody unexpectedly poor a dirty water all over your head. However, as far as possible, try
to talk about this phenomenon, no offense. We will not resent the fact that the "Russian, according
to British press - the most stupid in the world." Smile at the argument that the "war against Napoleon
won the non-Russian, and lice." We will not discuss with the Japanese man in the street, which feels
an antipathy to us, among other things because all the cold storms come on the street it from Russia.
Forget about the Finns, who, according to Western opinion polls, do not love us more than any
foreigners. And this at a time when, according to domestic opinion polls, that the Finns have the
highest Russian sympathies.
What to do: love evil. In short, keep yourself in hand. It is better to remember the words of
George Nathaniel Curzon Marquis, Viceroy of India and at the time the British Foreign Minister: "Every
Englishman comes to Russia as Russophobe, and left as a Russophile" This means that in the basis
of antipathy towards the Russian lies ignorance and myths. Partly born of life itself, partly by
skillful professionals employed by our political opponents: there is such a thing as information
warfare. And this is not limited to the Soviet period, but can be traced since ancient times. The
disappearance of the Soviet Union did not affect Russophobia much. "New Thinking", which Gorbachev
dreamed about never materialized. There is also historical memory. If we talk about ethnophobias,
this is an inexhaustible source of poisoned water.
We can present many additional examples, but even from what has been said above, it is clear that
the problem is multifaceted and so deeply ingrained in the mind of a typical Western person (to say
nothing about establishment -- NNB) that for Russians it is better to forget about an illusion that
it can be cured or even drastically changed. Each countermeasure is only a palliative solution.
Thus we should not deceive ourselves - any countermeasure is only palliative. Russophobia glow
can be reduced, but to end it might be impossible as is the case with other ethnophoibias.
However, even to lower the level of Russophobia is a difficult undertaking which requires considerable
intellectual efforts and financial investments. In addition, the Russian professionals in the field
of foreign media (or propaganda, sorry for such old-fashioned word) are long time already listed
in the "red book". After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new government decided that the professionals
who know how to work with foreign media are no longer needed, everything will be done automatically:
our friends Bill and Helmut will help. In extreme cases, retired professionals can be without problems
replaced by the young and energetic sneakers merchants. It did not happen. Meanwhile, the bad image
of Russia means for the country significant economic and political losses.
When it comes to Russophobia, the questions usually turns out to be a surplus, but the answers,
even the most sophisticated, almost always may be subject to reasoned criticism. This is further
evidence of the complexity and ambiguity of the problem. For example, surveys carried out by foreigners,
record that in recent years the attitude to the Russian in almost all countries around the world
deteriorated. It would seem that there is nothing to rejoice, meanwhile, history has repeatedly argued
that a weakened Russia is far less negative feelings abroad than Russia on the path to recovery,
when she, like Phoenix, once again rises from the ashes. Thus, the sharp deterioration of perceptions
of Russia by foreigners can simultaneously be a sign that Moscow is perusing a wrong policy, and,
conversely, that is peruse absolutely correct policy. It is difficult to sort out.
By the way, if we were talking about the West here, it is curious to see how the West steps for
many centuries on the same rake. Whenever Russia is experiencing the most difficult times, Western
politicians, believing Russia is close to death, begin to seriously talk about her vivisection, and,
conversely, when the "deceased" Russia suddenly opens his eyes, the West falls into mortal fear and
hysteria. So it was during the Troubled Times, when the Poles, Swedes and British tried to split
Russian lands apart. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, when Russia was still weakened Western Europe
for the sake of preserving peace in its own backyard identified zones of expansion of the major European
powers: our motherland, according to this "peace plan", was granted to the Swedes. The only thing
that did not consider the German philosopher, mathematician, lawyer and theologian, Gottfried Leibniz
-- the author of this ingenious plan -- the birth of Peter the Great. By the end of the reign of
Peter Sweden ceased to be a great power, Russia become an empire, and a Russian soldier, frightened
Europe to such hiccups, from which it can not escape for a long time.
Then there was the defeat in the Crimean War, which, as it seemed to many European politicians,
forever cemented lag Russian from the outside world, but came to the liberal reforms of Alexander
II, who once again raised Russia from its knees. Later there was a First World, revolution, civil
war, and those event immediately generated Churchill plan to put an end to Russia once and forever,
dismembering her to pieces. And this project also ended in failure, but instead came back scared
the West Europeans almost to death, the Soviet Union.
Finally, the collapse of the USSR has created new hopes, and the emergence of a Russian helm of
Putin produced a new disappointment: hatred intermixed with fear. Here are typical in the West, the
view expressed by one of the Italian journalists: "The USSR is considered a country, lost forever.
The recent emergence of Russia as a nation state was a bolt from the sky. " And that's madam did
not know yet what order book of Russian defense enterprises in the past year increased by 61%, as
recently reported by Russian President. Thunder would be simply deafening.
In short, we are dealing with a déjà vu all over gain: the same way foreign press treated Russia
in Europe and after the Troubled Times and after the Crimean War, and after the Revolution of 1917
.
Of course, the fact that due to the fear of Russian bear whose jaws are in Europe, and the tail
is located in the Far East, simultaneously flourish Russophobia, does not make Russians happy. But
I personally, if we have to choose, prefer to have a strong Russia with a undesirable side effect
in the form of Russophobia, than the Russian bear's skin over the fireplace in some western office,
which the owner, proudly showing visitors, affectionately scratching behind his ear. Without experiencing
any of Russophobia!
Are there any tools that would provide the West at least a middle ground between a pathological
fear of Russian and not less pathological contempt for her? I think it is. All I will not enumerate
them all. But one thing worth mentioning is mandatory. Necessary, finally, once and for all clear
the historic debris, which is really to blame Russian. We can remember, say, Russian-Polish friction
because of Katyn. The fact that Stalin's regime committed a crime, we know the whole world, but Russia,
including the modern Russia, could not find the courage to tell the whole truth about the Polish
tragedy. If you want to, once again apologize, and most importantly to pass, finally, Warsaw, all
at our disposal documents. In the end, there are still living relatives of the victims, who have
every right to know how their relatives died. Why this is not done until now, I can not understand,
especially because the crime is committed not this generation, but fundamentally different, the Stalinist
regime.
At the same time, giving the necessary debt, in my opinion, in any case we can not forget about
our own claims. Unlike its neighbors, we all too easy to forgive, but it does not promote respect
for Russia. Yes, there was Katyn. But until it was no less terrible fate of the Russian prisoners
who fell into the hands of the Poles after the failure of the famous Tukhachevsky offensive of Warsaw.
There are undeniable evidence how they treated those prisoners, both in Russia and the West. Division
of assistance to POW in Poland of the American Union of Christian youth on October 20, 1920 noted
that the Russian prisoners were kept in deplorable conditions: indoors, totally unsuitable for housing,
with no furniture, sleeping aids, and most importantly - no glass in the windows, despite the cold.
In the prisoners had no shoes, clothing, medicines, not enough medical personnel, food. All of the
above, conclude U.S. observers, leads "to the rapid extinction of prisoners of war." Really dying
by the thousands. No wonder the Lviv newspaper "Forward" December 22, 1920 calls Tuchola camp a "death
camp". Thus, Katyn and Tuchola stand side by side. And it is necessary to treat this
and ask the Poles of repentance for the brutal treatment of Russian. By the way, we should not have
any illusion. About the same barbaric way the Red Army prisoners of war were treated, Baltic states
treated the White Army Yudenich forces which retreat to their land. They allowed to passed then through
the border in small groups, then confiscated all the weapon, after another mile all the valuables,
and then clothes. So they beat is on the based on ideology but simply because they were Russians.
Defending our ancestors who were subjected to abuse, we are seeking not only justice but also of
self-respect. Man, do not mindful of kinship, respect is not deserved.
However, even if it has been said above about Russophobia, only a small drop in the cap or a smallest
piece of a huge iceberg.
In addition, there is still the main problem, without deal with which all the fighting Russophobia
is meaningless. This problem is ourselves: our standard of living, our culture, the development of
our civil society, our internal and foreign policy, our military and economic power. Weak are always
subject to humiliation: that is, unfortunately, human nature.
Any countermeasures -- although without them it situation might get worse -- no matter how sophisticated
and skilled as they are, still no substitute for that, I'm talking about. So, first of all, to deal
with all of us Russophobia requires a healthy and strong Russia. The fact that in this country and
to live pleasantly, of course.
The old wisdom says, to be respected around, start to start to respect himself - a thing that
you have created with their own hands.
And there, staring, reconsider their views on the Russian, even touchy Finns.
The Western media even before the Ukrainian Maidan was broadcast events in Russia exclusively in
a negative way. Attempts are being made to discredit almost all Russian initiatives and projects, ranging
from the Olympics to the elections of the President, etc. For the implementation of anti-Russian propaganda
standard techniques of "projection" polished in color revolutions were used. That includes activization
via NGOs of the opposition media and opposition figures within the country. The set of "prisoners
of conscience" was created from academics, businessmen and politicians, who, for various
reasons, wished to leave Russia for the West. Corrupt businessmen, who escaped to the West to avoid
prosecution in Russia became prisoner of conscience and political oppositionist on the moment they cross
the border. Anti-Russian propaganda aims in stressing civilizational, cultural, intellectual backwardness
of Russia compared "advanced and enlightened" West.
The purpose of this propaganda "strangulation" of Russia is instituting "regime change" and bring
to power the second generation of compradors. As well as further dismemberment of its territory. Some
forms on internal conflict are supported as a part of destabilization strategy. With the ultimate goal
of second partitioning of Russia and the emergence of new quasi-independent States.
To understand the coverage of Russia in western MSM one needs to understand the mechanisms of war
propaganda. The latter is guided by the following postulates well known since the WWI (Falsehood
in War-Time):
1. We do not want war.
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
This topic is discussed in more details elsewhere, but a
good starting point is the book Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1965/1973) by French
philosopher, theologian, legal scholar, and sociologist Jacques Ellul. This book was one the first attempt
to study propaganda from a sociological approach as well as a psychological one. It presents a taxonomy
for propaganda methods, including such paired opposites as
political–sociological,
vertical–horizontal,
rational–irrational,
agitation–integration.
During World War II, Ellul was a leader in the French resistance after being discharged as a professor
from French universities by the Vichy regime. After France's liberation, he became professor at the
University of Bordeaux. He authored 58 books and numerous articles over his lifetime, the dominant theme
of which has been the threat to human freedom created by modern technology. In 1947, Ellul was appointed
chair of law and social history at the Institut d'études politiques that increased his reputation
as a social and political philosopher which led to the publication of his works in the United States.
Here is an abridged Wikipedia summary:
...."The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, inspired by Harold Lasswell" defined propaganda as
"the expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view
to influencing the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends and
through psychological manipulations".[3]
This definition seemed more accurate and was supported by others such as Goebbels, a German propagandist,
who stated, "We do not talk to say something, but to obtain a certain effect."[ Similarly
F.C. Bartlett holds an accurate interpretation of the goal of propaganda as not merely as an instrument
to increase political understanding of events, but to obtain results through action. Ellul supports
the idea that propaganda is made primarily because of a will to action for the purpose of effectively
arming policy made by the State. Leonard Doob, an American specialist, defined propaganda in 1948
as "the attempt to affect the personalities and to control the behavior of individuals towards
desired ends."
Unending definitions show the uncertainty among specialists and the inability of definitions to
encompass all that is propaganda. Just because the term propaganda cannot be defined with any degree
of precision does not mean that attempts to define it should be abandoned.
"Very frequently propaganda is describe as a manipulation for the purpose of changing idea
or opinions of making individuals 'believe' some idea or fact, and finally of making them adhere
to some doctrine—all matters of the mind. It tries to convince, to bring about a decision, to
create a firm adherence to some truth. This is a completely wrong line of thinking: to view propaganda
as still being what it was in 1850 is to cling to an obsolete concept of man and of the means
to influence him; it is to condemn oneself to understand nothing about propaganda. The aim
of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change
adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action.
It is no longer to transform an opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief."
...He holds that the main concern of propaganda through psychological influence is sparking
action to a desired response by developing learned attitudes. ....
Summary of chapters
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes is divided into five substantive chapters discussing
Ellul’s analysis. Introduction
Regardless of the State, propaganda should be viewed as situated at the center of the growing
powers of governmental and administrative techniques.
"Differences in political regimes matter little; differences in social levels are more important;
and most important is national self-awareness. Propaganda is a good deal less the political weapon
of a regime (it is that also) than the effect of a technological society that embraces the entire
man and tends to be a completely integrated society. Propaganda stops man from feeling that things
in society are oppressive and persuades him to submit with good grace."[7] Chapter One: Characteristics
of Propaganda
Modern propaganda is a technique that requires an analysis of both environment and individual
to be subjected to propaganda therefore it is based on scientific analyses of psychology and sociology.
Sufficient understanding of these two areas creates the most effective propaganda and without the
scientific research of modern psychology and sociology there would be no propaganda. "Step by step
the propagandist builds the techniques on the basis of his knowledge of man, his tendencies, his
desires, his needs, his psychic mechanisms, his conditioning, and as much on social psychology as
on depth psychology."[8] 1.Part One: External Characteristics
Propaganda is first and foremost concerned with influencing an individual psychologically
by creating convictions and compliance through imperceptible techniques that are effective only by
continuous repetition. Propaganda employs encirclement on the individual by trying to surround
man by all possible routes, in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or
his needs through his conscious and his unconscious, and by assailing him in both his private and
his public life.[9] The propagandist also acknowledges the most favorable moment to influence man
is when an individual is caught up in the masses. Propaganda must be total in that utilizes all
forms of media to draw the individual into the net of propaganda. Propaganda is designed to
be continuous within the individual's life by filling the citizen’s entire day. It is based on slow
constant impregnation that functions over a long period of time exceeding the individual’s capacities
for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance. In order for propaganda to maintain
encirclement, it must be exerted by an organization capable of influencing psychological channels
that reach the individual. Psychological and physical actions are inseparable elements to propaganda,
however, if no influence is exerted by an organization than there can be no propaganda because it
cannot operate in a vacuum. The necessity for a physical organization limits propaganda enterprises
and in order to be effective propaganda must work inside a group, principally inside a nation. Propaganda
must first organize the masses in order to propagandize within the masses. In general, propaganda
is a set of methods employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive
participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psychologically unified through psychological
manipulations and incorporated into an organization.[10] Propaganda should no longer be viewed in
terms of an orthodoxy but rather modern propaganda should be seen as an orthopraxy because it aims
for participation not adherence. Participation can be active or passive: active if propaganda has
been able to mobilize the individual for action; passive if the individual does not act directly
but psychologically supports that action. 2. Part Two: Internal Characteristics The second major
element that a propagandist must understand is the environment in which the individual operates,
mainly the foci of interest of the public. An understanding of the conventional patterns and stereotypes
that pre-exist in a milieu provide the propagandist with material from which to build off. Propaganda
is not able to create something out of nothing and is confined to developing pre-existing material
thereby expressing the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. These currents
include accepted structures such as collective sociological presuppositions and myths that are fundamental
to society.
"The Four Great Collective Sociological Presuppositions in the Modern World: 1.That an individual's
aim in life is happiness. 2.That man is naturally good. 3.That history develops in endless progress.
4.That everything is matter.
The Collective Myths: 1.of Work 2.of Happiness 3.of the Nation 4.of Youth 5.of the Hero"[11]
These currents reinforce socieand hold man’s mjor convictions and propa
ganda must voice this reality. Propaganda is concerned with timeliness since an individual is only
moved to action if he is pushed towards a timely one by propaganda. Once it becomes history it inevitably
becomes neutral and indifferent to the individual who is sensitive primarily to current news. "Operational
words" are used to penetrate an individual’s indifference. However they lose their value as immediacy
passes as old facts are replaced by new ones. The "current events man" is carried along the current
of news and caught in the events of today, losing interest in the events of yesterday. The indifferent
are apolitical and without opinion, therefore they are outside of propaganda’s grasp. Incidentally,
there are also the undecided, people whose opinions are vague, who form the majority of citizens
within the collective. These citizens are the most susceptible to control of public opinion that
is dictated by propaganda. Lastly, this part discusses propaganda and truth or the ability of propaganda
to relay something as true based not on the accuracy of facts but of reality. Propaganda veils the
truth with falsehoods even though lying is generally to be avoided. 3. Part Three: Categories of
Propaganda Presented in this chapter is a sophisticated taxonomy for propaganda, including such paired
opposites as political-sociological, vertical-horizontal, rational-irrational, and agitation-integration.
Political vs. Sociological Propaganda:
Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration,
or a pressure group with the intention of changing the behavior of the public. The themes and objectives
of this type of propaganda are of a political nature. The goals are determined by the government,
party, administration, or pressure group. The methods of political propaganda are calculated in a
precise manner and its main criteria is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making
various political acts acceptable to the people.[12] There are two forms of political propaganda,
tactical and strategic. Tactical political propaganda seeks to obtain immediate results within a
given framework. Strategic political propaganda is not concerned with speed but rather it establishes
the general line, the array of arguments, and the staging of campaigns.
Political propaganda reversed is sociological propaganda because the ideology is penetrated
by means of its sociological context. Propaganda, as it is traditionally known, implies an attempt
to spread an ideology through the mass media of communication in order to lead the public to a desired
action. In sociological propaganda even media that are not controllable such as individual art work,
films, and writing reflect the ideology allowing for an accelerated penetration of the masses and
the individuals within them.[13]
Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where a society seeks to integrate the maximum
number of individuals into itself by unifying its members’ behavior according to a pattern, spreading
its style of life abroad, and thus imposing itself on other groups. Essentially sociological
propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing
compliance with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive
adaptation by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the
individual is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without
realizing it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising, the
movies, education, and magazines. "The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this
fashion; and to indicate, secondly that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life."[14]
This type of propaganda is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture
or nation. This propaganda reinforces the individual’s way of life and represents this way of life
as best. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments
of good and evil according to the order of the individual’s way of life. Sociological propaganda
does not result in action, however, it can prepare the ground for direct propaganda. From then on,
the individual in the clutches of such sociological propaganda believes that those who live this
way are on the side of the angels, and those who don’t are bad.[15]
Vertical vs. Horizontal Propaganda: Vertical propaganda is similar to direct propaganda
that aims at the individual in the mass and is renewed constantly. However, in horizontal propaganda
there is no top down structure but rather it springs up from within the group. It involves meticulous
encirclement that traps an individual involuntarily in dialectic. The individual is led unfailingly
to its adherence by talking about the dialectic until the individual discovers the answer that was
set up unconsciously for him to find. Schools are a primary mechanism for integrating the individual
into the way of life.
Rational vs. Irrational Propaganda:
Propaganda is addressed to the individual on the foundation of feelings and passions which are
irrational, however, the content of propaganda does address reason and experience when it presents
information and furnishes facts making it rational as well. It is important for propaganda to be
rational because modern man needs relation to facts. Modern man wants to be convinced that by acting
in a certain way he is obeying reason in order to have self justification. The challenge is creating
an irrational response on the basis of rational and factual elements by leaving an impression on
an individual that remains long after the facts have faded away. Individuals are not compelled to
act based facts but rather on emotional pressure, the vision of the future, or the myth.
Agitation vs. Integration propaganda:Propaganda of agitation seeks to mobilize people
in order to destroy the established order and/or government. It seeks rebellion by provoking
a crisis or unleashing explosive movements during one. It momentarily subverts the habits, customs,
and beliefs that were obstacles to making great leap forward by addressing the internal elements
in each of us. It eradicates the individual out of his normal framework and then proceeds to plunge
him into enthusiasm by suggesting extraordinary goals which nevertheless seem to him completely within
reach. However, this enthusiasm can only last a short duration so the objective must be achieved
quickly followed by a period of rest. People cannot be kept at in a "state of perpetual enthusiasm
and insecurity". Rebellion is incited by the propagandist who knows that hate is one of the most
profitable resources when drawn out of an individual. Agitation propaganda is usually thought of
as propaganda in that it aims to influence people to act. Integration propaganda, on the other hand,
is a more subtle form that aims to reinforce cultural norms. This is sociological in nature because
it provides stability to society by supporting the "way of life" and the myths within a culture.
It is propaganda of conformity that requires participation in the social body. This type of propaganda
is more prominent and permanent, yet it is not as recognized as agitation propaganda because it is
more permanent manner. Basically, agitation propaganda provides the motive force when needed and
when not needed integration propaganda provides the context and backdrop. Chapter Two: The Condition
for the Existence of Propaganda
The nature of propaganda has changed over the course of time and yet it is evident that propaganda
cannot exist without a milieu. The emergence of propaganda is interconnected with technology and
scientific discoveries yet it can only appear and grow under certain conditions. Several events have
occurred that have furthered propaganda by increasing its ability in depth and discovering new methods.
Modern propaganda could not exist without the mass media or modern means of transportation which
permit crowds of diverse individuals from all over to assemble easily and frequently. 1.Part One:
The Sociological Conditions
Society must contain elements of both an individualist society and a mass society. Propaganda
aims to capture both the mass and the individual at the same time through this dual type of society.
A mass society is based on individuals that are reduced to ciphers based on what they have in common
to others. First conditions for growth and development of modern propaganda: it emerged in Western
Europe in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth precisely because that was when
society was becoming increasingly individualistic and its organic structures were breaking down.
Individuals without natural organic local groups are defenseless and more likely to be caught up
in a social current. On the other hand, a mass society has considerable population density in which
local structures and organizations are weak, currents of opinion are strongly felt creating a certain
psychological unity, and individuals are organized into large and influential collectives. Mass society
is characterized by uniformity and material life despite differences of environment. Once a mass
society is created, public opinion will begin to play a role to help individuals form their own personal
opinion. Public opinion can only express itself through channels which are provided by the mass media
of communication without which there could be no propaganda. Yet it is important that mass media
be subject to centralized control in order to successfully form public opinion without any opposition.
Again Ellul mentions that the individual must be caught in wide net of media through all channels.
Once opinion has been formed, propaganda is able to reinforce it and transform opinion into action.
2. Part Two: Objective Conditions of Total Propaganda Propaganda thrives off of what individuals
have in common with others to develop patterns of behavior and modify cultural opinions. Total propaganda
recognizes that within a nation individuals should all have in common a standard of living, a culture,
and an ideology. The need of an average standard of living is that people must be able to afford
to buy a radio, TV, a newspaper, or go to the movies. It is mostly concerned with the densest mass
which is made up of average men and not the very rich or very poor. Poor cannot do this therefore
they cannot be subjected to integration propaganda because the immediate concerns of daily life absorb
all their capacities and efforts. The poor can only be subjected to agitation propaganda, excited
to the point of theft and murder. But they cannot be trained by propaganda, kept in hand, channeled,
and oriented. More advanced propaganda can influence only a man who is not completely haunted by
poverty, a man who can view things from a certain distance and be reasonably unconcerned about his
daily bread, who therefore can take an interest in more general matters.
"For propaganda to be effective the propagandee must have a certain store of ideas and a number
of conditioned reflexes that can only be acquired through peace of mind springing from relative security.
The establishment of a mode of common life- all this leads to the creation of a type of normal man
conveniently leads all men toward that norm via a multitude of paths. Propaganda’s intent is to integrate
people into the normal pattern prevailing in society bring about conformance to way of life. To sum
up: The creation of normalcy in our society can take one of two shapes. It can be the result of scientific,
psycho-sociological analysis based on statistics- that is the American type of normalcy. It can be
ideological and doctrinaire- that is the Communist type. But the results are identical: such normalcy
necessarily gives rise to propaganda that can reduce the individual to the pattern most useful to
society."[16]
"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or
economic reality" to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of
facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion." Education permits
the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is
indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because
for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts
itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no informed opinion with
regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect.
Propaganda means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda,
gives propaganda the means to operate, and generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending
to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is placed in a social context and
learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation
feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us
into social and political action. Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because
it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better than quality, the more political
or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is
to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy,
politics, art, or literature. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public
opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes
to the manipulation of these symbols. Chapter Three: The Necessity for Propaganda
All propaganda is based on a need, a dual need, first there is the need of state to make it and
second there is the need of propagandee to receive it. These two needs compliment and correspond
to each other in the development of propaganda. Propaganda is an expression of modern society as
a whole. 1.Part One: The State's Necessity
The State has the need to make propaganda to integrate citizens into its society, to disseminate
information, and to increase participation and involvement of members of society. Sometimes the people
want to take part in government affairs. However, the official leaders cannot disconnect themselves
from what the people want. Being that the people in charge cant escape the people , bait must be
presented to them. This acts as a disguise that must be there to hide what is really happening behind
the scenes in the government . Citizens are aware that political decisions affect everybody and governments
cannot govern without the support, presence, pressure, or knowledge of the people. Yet the people
are incapable of making long term policy so opinion must be created to follow the government because
the government cannot be led by opinion. All of this describes the "Mass-Government" relationship
characterized by people demanding what has already been decided, in order to appear as though the
government is actually caring about what the people need. The next part that the book discuss is
psychological warfare. It is believed to be a peace policy that is used between nations as a form
of aggression. This type of propaganda changes the public opinion of an opposing regime so that it
can be in favor of there regime. 2. Part Two: The Individual’s Necessity The individual needs propaganda
to gain satisfaction as a member of society. Individuals want to be informed and to participate in
the decisions of the state. Propaganda is the outlet through which individuals obtain the satisfaction
of having contributed to the state. It is a necessary instrument of a state or institution to spread
information to members of the group or society. But for propaganda to succeed it must respond to
a need on the individual’s part as well. The individual is by no means just an innocent victim of
propaganda when in fact he provokes the psychological action of propaganda by not merely lending
himself to it, but also from deriving satisfaction from it. It is strictly a sociological phenomenon,
in the sense that it has its roots and reasons in the need of the group that will sustain it. The
great role performed by propaganda is in its ability to give the people the involvement they crave
or the illusion of it in order for the masses to be artificially satisfied. Individuals are faced
with decisions which require a range of information that the individual does not and cannot have
without propaganda. Thus, the individual is unable to accept that he cannot form opinion on his own
and is caught between his desire and his inability. People are willing and likely to accept propaganda
that allows them to artificially satisfy their desire to have an opinion by hiding their incompetence.
The individual does not mind being given preconceived positions because otherwise he would realize
that he does not understand the problems of the modern world. The individual would then realize that
he "depends on situations of which he has no control" and have to face this reality. The individual
cannot live in the state of this harsh reality so he derives satisfaction from the veil created by
the ideology and the sense of values it provides. The individual need psychological and ideological
reasons why he needs to be where he is and propaganda is the mechanism that the state uses for this
very purpose. Chapter Four: Psychological Effects of Propaganda
The psychological effects of propaganda on an individual cannot be ignored. The individual undergoes
profound changes while being propagandized mainly the diminishment of personal activity. "Propaganda
furnishes objectives, organizes the traits of an individual into a system, and freezes them into
a mold by standardizing current ideas, hardening the prevailing stereotypes, and furnishing thought
patterns in all areas."[17] The individual is traumatized by the overwhelming force of propaganda
that intensifies the prejudices and beliefs until eventually the individual has no control over his
own impulses. It seeks to push the individual into the mass until his will fades entirely into that
of the mass. Individuality is sacrificed for the greater cause of the nation by uniting him and blending
him with others. Critical and personal judgment are subdued and replaced with ready-made attitudes
and opinions. Discernment is made nearly impossible for the individual whose ability to judge is
destroyed making him dependent on propaganda’s ready-made opinions from then on. The individual can
no longer exercise his own judgment and becomes honed into what propaganda tells him. He no longer
expresses himself but his group once he accepts public opinion as his own. The artificial, impersonal
public opinion created by propaganda is absorbed by the individual and he becomes filled with its
conviction. When he is fully integrated in the social group and can no longer distinguish between
himself and society than he has reached total alienation. In this process, the individual’s personal
inclinations lead to participation in the collective where he loses control and submits to external
impulses. The individual is suppressed psychologically so that he can continue to live under the
conditions in which society places him by providing an artificial and unreal reality that is the
result of powerful propaganda. Chapter Five: The Socio-Political Effects
"In the nineteenth century, the problem of opinion formation through the expression of thought
was essentially a problem of contacts between the State and the individual, and a problem of acquisition
of freedom. But today, thanks to the mass media, the individual finds himself outside the battle
that is now between the State and powerful groups. The freedom to express ideas is no longer at stake
in this debate but it has been replaced by mastery and domination by the State or some powerful groups
over the formation of opinion. The individual is not in the battle because he is the stake and the
battle will determine what voice he will be permitted to hear and which words will have the power
to obsess him."[18] 1.Part One: Propaganda and Ideology
An ideology provides society certain beliefs and no social group can exist without the foundation
of these beliefs. Propaganda is the means by which an ideology can expand without force. An ideology
is either fortified within a group or expanded beyond the borders of a group through propaganda.
However, propaganda is less and less concerned with spreading the ideology nowadays as it is with
becoming autonomous. The ideology is no longer the decisive factor of propaganda that must be obeyed
by the propagandist. The propagandist cannot be constrained by the ideology of his State but must
operate in service of the state and be able to manipulate the ideology as if it were an object. The
ideology merely provides the content for the propagandist to build off since he is limited to what
already is present within the group, nation, or society. The fundamental ideologies are nationalism,
socialism, communism, and democracy. 2. Part Two: Effects on the Structure of Public Opinion Public
opinion is an instrument of propaganda that is disseminated through the mass media of communication
to the masses. While most people view the formation of public opinion as being shaped itself by interaction
between different viewpoints on controversial questions, this is incorrect because public opinion
is delineated by propaganda as a "truth" which is either believed or not believed. Public opinion
ceases to be controversial and can no longer form itself except through channels of mass media. No
opinion can be held until it is communicated to the masses through mass media. Propaganda uses public
opinion to externalize inner opinions of the organization to the masses that eventually produces
conformity.[19] 3. Part Three: Propaganda and Grouping In regards to propaganda, there are two groups:
the groups that make propaganda and the groups that are subjected to propaganda. In Ellul's view,
there is a "double foray on the part of propaganda that proves the excellence of one group and the
evilness of another at the same time to create partitioning". This creates isolation between groups
by promoting allegiance to the group one is in and suppressing conversation between groups. The more
they listen to their propaganda the stronger their beliefs and the greater their justifications for
their actions. Partitioning takes place on many different levels including class, religious, political,
national and blocs of nations. A superior group is able to affect the lesser groups, however, groups
that have an equal amount of influence will only separate further from one another in that a members
allegiance to a group develops closed mindedness. Well-organized propaganda is able to work with
different elements that exist within a nation such as religion, political parties, and labor groups.
4. Part Four: Propaganda and Democracy Since democracy depends on public opinion, it is clear that
propaganda must be involved. The relationship between democracy and propaganda evidently presents
a conflict between the principles of democracy and the processes of propaganda. The individual is
viewed as the cornerstone of a democracy which is a form of government that is made "for the people
and by the people". However, as discussed in early chapters Ellul described the masses are incapable
of making long-term foreign policy and the government needs to make these decisions in a timely manner.
This is where propaganda comes into play and projects an artificial reality to the masses to satisfy
their need to participate in government while the decisions are really made behind the scenes. This
was also describe earlier as the "mass-government" relationship. Democratic regimes develop propaganda
in line with its myths and prejudices. Propaganda stresses the superiority of a democratic society
while intensifying the prejudices between democratic and oppressive.
Major themes
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes builds on prior notions of propaganda to demonstrate
that while propaganda is psychological in nature it is just as much sociological in nature as well.
Propaganda is not just embedded into the individual's psyche but also the cultural psyche. Propaganda
works off the inner characteristics of both the individual and the society that the individual belongs.
This thorough analysis made by Ellul illustrates that to downplay the importance of the sociological
influences of propaganda to psychological ones is a dreadful error. Propaganda is more threatening
when it begins to be recognized as sociological as well psychological in nature. Below are two major
themes the first stressing the psychological aims of propaganda the second the sociological aims.
"The Lonely Crowd"
The term "lonely crowd" is used by Ellul to distinguish the two inseparable elements of propaganda,
the individual and the masses, which must be addressed by the propagandist at the same time. As an
isolated unit, the individual is of no interest to the propagandist unless he is reduced to an average.
It is crucial that the individual is never considered as an individual but always in terms of what
he has in common with others. The individual is included and integrated into the mass because the
propagandist profits from the process of diffusion of emotions through the mass, and at the same
time, from the pressures felt by an individual when in a group.[20]
In this setting, "the individual caught up in the mass", the individual's reactions are easier
to provoke and psychic defenses are weakened. The individual must always be considered as a participant
in a mass and similarly the mass must only be viewed as a crowd composed of individuals. When propaganda
is addressed to the crowd, it must touch each individual in that crowd which is in fact nothing but
assembled individuals. Conversely, the individual should not be viewed as alone as a listener, watcher,
or reader because the individual is nevertheless part of an invisible crowd though he is actually
alone. The most favorable moment to influence an individual is when he is alone in the mass, the
structure of the mass is extremely profitable to the propagandist concerned with being effective.
Fundamental currents in society
"One cannot make just any propaganda any place for anybody."[21] While propaganda is focused on
reaching the individual, it cannot only rely on building off what already exists in the individual.
Propaganda must also attach itself to the pre-existing fundamental currents of the society it seeks
to influence. The propagandist must know the current tendencies and the stereotypes among the public
he is trying to reach. These are indicated by principal symbols of the culture the propagandist wishes
to attack since these symbols express the attitudes of a particular culture. Individuals are part
of a culture and are therefore psychologically shaped by that culture. The main task of propaganda
is to utilize the conditioned symbols as transmitters of that culture to serve its purpose. Propaganda
must be a reflection of the fundamental structures of society to be successful and not contradictory
of existing opinions. A skillful propagandist does not try to change mass opinion or go against an
accepted structure. Only a bad propagandist would make a direct attack on an established, reasoned,
durable opinion, accepted cliché, or fixed pattern. "Each individual harbors a large number of stereotypes
and established tendencies; from this arsenal the propagandist must select those easiest to mobilize,
those which will give the greatest strength to the action he wants to precipitate."[22]
While propaganda cannot create something out of nothing, it does have the ability to build on
the foundation already established. More importantly even though it does not create new material
and is confined to what already exists, it is not necessarily powerless. "It can attack from the
rear, war own slowly, provide new centers of interest, which cause the neglect of previously acquired
positions; it can divert a prejudice; or it can elicit an action contrary to an opinion held by the
individual without his being clearly aware of it."[23]
Propaganda can gradually undermine prejudices and images in order to weaken them. These fundamental
currents in society create the perfect atmosphere for sociological propaganda which influences the
individual through his customs and unconscious habits. Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where
a society tries to unify its members’ behavior according to a pattern. Essentially sociological propaganda
is to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance
with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation
by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the individual
is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without realizing
it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising, the movies, education,
and magazines. "The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate,
secondly that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life."[24] This type of propaganda
is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture or nation. This propaganda
reinforces the individual’s way of life and represents this way of life as best.
See also [edit] Brainwashing Conformity Ideology Indoctrination Media manipulation Mind control
Propaganda Psychological manipulation Psychological warfare Social Influence Socially constructed
reality
The USA administration, and especially neocons, entrenched in State Department, organized putsch
in Kiev with the help of their European satellites. When the civil war started as the result of the
putsch the USA introduced sanctions against Russia. See "Fuck
the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place
Tremendous pressure exerted on Russia by the West, largely intended to show the subjects of world politics
undesirability of implementing an independent foreign policy. Washington and its satellites in Europe
through sanctions are trying to demonstrate their ability to isolate the "offending" countries from
the global economy and technical progress by controlling supplies of high technology equipment. However,
analysis of the accusations against Russia suggests that both the USA Europe are dominated by neoliberals/neocons
who themselves are divorced from the realities of the current processes and looks at the world through
the eyes of the early 90th then neoliberalism enjoyed its triumphal march in Eastern Europe and xUSSR
space.
After 2008 neoliberalism entered so called zombie stage. It is still very powerful and very
dangerous, but ideology of neoliberalism, like ideology of Marxism before is now looks like perishable
goods with expired date of consumption. In no way it is not attractive anymore. Events like enforcing
Greece debt slavery by Germany and France only increase the reaction of rejection.
And that's despite all economic power the USA definitely possesses and success in implementing economic
sanctions which drove the Russia GDP growth into negative rages presents huge challenge for the USA.
One of the best option the USA elites are pushing is the limited war in Europe that can weaken both
EU and Russia. So in a way the putsch in Kiev was anti-EU measure, as Victoria Nuland famous quote suggests.
Sanctions, as damaging as they are, suggest that the empire lost diplomatic skills. And there
is no question that economic weapons are as close to the act of war as you can get. See
Cold War II. As Patrick Buchanan notes (ecnomicpolicyjournal.com,
April 28, 2014):
"Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin's Russia by cutting off its economic
and political ties to the outside world ... and effectively making it a pariah state."
So wrote Peter Baker in Sunday's New York Times. Yet if history is any guide, this "pariah policy,"
even if adopted, will not long endure.
Three years after Khrushchev sent tanks into Hungary, he
was touring the USA and celebrating with Ike the new "Spirit of Camp David."
Half a year after Khrushchev moved missiles into Cuba, JFK was talking detente is his famous speech
at American University.
Three weeks after Moscow incited the Arabs in the Six-Day War, Lyndon Johnson was meeting with
Premier Alexei Kosygin in New Jersey, where the "Spirit of Glassboro," was born.
So it went through the Cold War. Post-crises, U.S. presidents reached out to Soviet leaders. For
they saw Russia as too large and too powerful to be isolated and ostracized like North Korea.
The sustained expansion of economic sanctions, especially against the oil and gas sector and
specific companies as well as limited access to credit resources indicate the seriousness of the Western
establishment to deprive Russia of the economic growth and the ability to protect its own economic interests.
This "Anaconda strategy" of encircling Russia got a significant boost after the victory of far right
in EuroMaidan. This event has become for a great geopolitical victory for the USA and humbling defeat
for Russia. Russia was in bad shape to prevent it, as the logic of development of new state immanently
produces anti-Russian sentiments as the mean to create their own identity. But still weakness of Russia
in Ukraine was real and signify a serious problems ahead. Also the USA is way to strong to go into open
confontation with the US neocons, which dominates the US foreign policy.
The reaction of Russia on far right victory at EuroMaydan gave rise in in the US establishment, to
even more active implementation of the strategy of confrontation, and propaganda campaign against "the
Russian threat". Like Bolsheviks before them (and neocons are just turncoat Trotskyites, so there
are a lot of common between two), they hate any obstacle on the path to creation of global neoliberal
empire led by the USA. This strategy involves increasing the military presence on the European continent
and military power of NATO. Much tougher stance toward Russian projects in Western and Eastern Europe
and in attacks on the level of international organizations. Along with the anti-Russian operations in
Europe, the US and its satellites are active in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus. A good
example is the recent attempt to organize a Maidan in Armenia.
That's incorrect. They have soured on neoliberalism, and, especially, neoliberal
globalization. Many want a return of New Deal capitalism in some form.
Neoliberal ideology is now discredited and the process of de-legitimization of the ruling
neoliberal elite started when voters rejected Hillary.
15 Aug, 2018
Notable quotes:
"... "The roots of this disappointment can be easily identified" he told RT. "The working class, but also the middle class feels betrayed. Generally, there's widespread awareness that the American system doesn't function the way people expected it to function." ..."
"... "The message is very hopeful," ..."
"... a large part of the US population "no longer identifies with the American dream." He described the drop in support for Capitalism as the "beginning of the end of what in learned terms we call ideological hegemony." ..."
"... With more Americans feeling left behind, the only candidate who capitalized on this dissatisfaction in 2016 was Donald Trump. However, Zizek doesn't see Trump as the solution to America's problems. Even as the economic good times roll, recovery has not touched everyone equally. 40 million US citizens still live in poverty, and five million of these live in "third world conditions," according to a UN report released this June. ..."
"... "The only thing that can save the US is a stronger, more radical left," ..."
"... "should look at their own Democratic Party, how they totally ignored a clear, more leftist, anti-capitalist signal from Bernie Sanders and his movement." ..."
"... "failed the expectations of the American people" ..."
"... "I would ask her to remember how long I had to wait to get here," ..."
"... "I don't think that even those who spread this fear, that they take it seriously," ..."
Across political lines, young Americans (aged 18-29) in general are split on capitalism
and socialism. 51 percent of Americans aged 18-29 view socialism positively, while 45 percent
view capitalism positively, down 12 points in just two years.
Slavoj Zizek sees the shift as a realization that for some, the American Dream just isn't
real.
"The roots of this disappointment can be easily identified" he told RT. "The working
class, but also the middle class feels betrayed. Generally, there's widespread awareness that
the American system doesn't function the way people expected it to function."
Curiously, the drop in satisfaction comes at a time when the US economy is booming.
Unemployment is at its lowest point in half a century at just over three percent, wages are
increasing, and if President Trump is to be believed, all manner of companies are clamoring
to bring their manufacturing operations back to the USA from overseas.
In 2010, when more Democrats still trusted capitalism, things were objectively worse.
Unemployment stood at a dismal nine percent, wages had stagnated since the great recession,
and recovery was still a distant glimmer.
"The message is very hopeful," Zizek said about the poll, which he said shows
that quite a large part of the US population "no longer identifies with the American
dream." He described the drop in support for Capitalism as the "beginning of the end of what
in learned terms we call ideological hegemony."
TV Anchor: It is inexplicable that so many voters have a problem with capitalism
considering that for so many Americans
[pauses to check stats]
housing is unaffordable, student debt is skyrocketing & you need a GoFundMe page to
afford medical care https://t.co/JxIIZYZ2Du
With more Americans feeling left behind, the only candidate who capitalized on this
dissatisfaction in 2016 was Donald Trump. However, Zizek doesn't see Trump as the solution to
America's problems. Even as the economic good times roll, recovery has not touched everyone
equally. 40 million US citizens still live in poverty, and five million of these live in
"third world conditions," according to a UN
report released this June.
"The only thing that can save the US is a stronger, more radical left," Zizek
claims.
Where is the left?
The radical left Zizek talks about exists, but has been muscled out by the Democratic
party's more centrist establishment. The establishment, he argues, "should look at their
own Democratic Party, how they totally ignored a clear, more leftist, anti-capitalist signal
from Bernie Sanders and his movement."
Sanders was a popular figure, particularly with young voters. By running Hillary Clinton
instead, the centrist establishment "failed the expectations of the American
people"
However, since Clinton's miserable performance in 2016, the 'progressive' movement
championed by Sanders has slowly seeped into the mainstream. Nowhere was this more apparent
than in the Bronx this June, when self-professed 'democratic socialist' Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez snatched a stunning primary victory, ousting ten-term incumbent Rep. Joe
Crowley, a more centrist, suit-and-tie Democrat.
Ocasio-Cortez ran on a platform that includes Medicare for all, free college tuition, a
$15 minimum wage, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement – some of these
points the Clinton camp of the Democrat party would have considered anathema.
Ocasio-Cortez' victory appeared to lay out a clear roadmap for Democrats in the Trump age:
embrace the public's demand for a more radical left and win elections, or continue to blame
Russia and continue to lose. The Democratic establishment didn't listen however, with House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (California) playing down her victory, reminding voters that it
happened in "one district" and warning people not to get "carried away" with progressive
ideas.
Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (South Carolina) embodied the establishment
mentality when he said in an interview that Ocasio-Cortez needs to wait her turn before
joining the Democratic party's leadership.
"I would ask her to remember how long I had to wait to get here," the 78-year-old
Congressman said.
After her victory, Ocasio-Cortez jetted around the country to drum up support for
like-minded progressive candidates ahead of primary elections. Her stumping fell short
however, as four out of the six candidates endorsed by the socialist upstart lost their
elections.
Some critics put this failure down to an inbuilt 'fear of socialism' among Americans.
Zizek disagrees emphatically.
"I don't think that even those who spread this fear, that they take it
seriously," he said, adding that the US is unlikely to turn into Venezuela any time
soon. "That's pure fear-mongering" and "panicky reaction" at the newfound
popularity of socialism, he said.
If the trend revealed by the latest Gallup poll is correct, embracing a socialist message
could soon be the Democratic party's only means of survival.
Subscribe to RT newsletter to
get stories the mainstream media won't tell you.
In both cases CIA and neocons run the show. But there is new powerful factor: emergence of
CIA democrats like Brennan and the conversion of intelligence agencies into political tool, the
Cerberus that safeguard the castle of neoliberalism in the USA. The USA people (bottom 90%) be
damned.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's guilt in " Russiagate " is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day. ..."
"... Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right -- from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to pretend that chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as reported by the New York Times ..."
"... Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs. ..."
declared
liberal celebrity activist Rosie O'Donnell at a protest in front of the White House last week.
"We see it, he can't lie about it," she added. "He is going down and so will all of his
administration." "The charge is treason," O'Donnell declared. Protesters held held large
letters that spelled it out: " T-R-E-A-S-O-N ."
O'Donnell is by no means alone in her sentiments. Trump's guilt in " Russiagate
" is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every
passing day.
This kind of partisan religiosity is not new.
In the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, conservative pundit Ann Coulter accused war
opponents of "
treason " and insisted
of Saddam Hussein, "We know he had weapons of mass destruction."
Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American
right -- from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George
W. Bush and the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed
WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so
ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to
pretend
that
chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as
reported by the New York Times in 2014 were somehow the same thing as the "
mushroom cloud " the
Bush administration said Saddam was capable of.
Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.
The post-2016 left's most dominant narrative is arguably their deeply held belief -- with
all the ferocity and piety of yesterday's pro-war conservatives -- that Russia colluded with
Trump's campaign to undermine the presidential election. Many believe that the president and
anyone who supports his diplomatic efforts like Senator
Rand Paul are in the pocket of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It really was plausible that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 based on what our intelligence agencies
knew, or purported to know. Today, it is feasible that American democracy really has Putin's
fingerprints on it based on things revealed by U.S. intelligence.
But isn't it also possible that the left is reading far too much into Russiagate?
The Nation 's Aaron Maté believes liberals are
overreaching, and that's putting it mildly:
From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified
claims of US government officials and other sources, most of them unnamed. The reaction to
special counsel Robert Mueller's recent indictment of 12 Russian military-intelligence
officers for hacking of Democratic party servers and voter databases is no exception.
Mueller's indictment is certainly detailed. Most significantly, it marks the first time
anyone has been charged for offenses related to Russiagate's underlying crime.
But while it is a major step forward in the investigation, we have yet to see the basis
for the allegations that Mueller has lodged. As with any criminal case, from a petty offense
to a cybercrime charge against a foreign government, a verdict cannot be formed in the
absence of this evidence.
Then the irony kicks in. Maté continues, "The record of US intelligence, replete with
lies and errors, underscores the need for caution. Mueller was a player in one of this
century's most disastrous follies when, in congressional testimony, he endorsed claims about
Iraqi WMDs and warned that Saddam Hussein 'may supply' chemical and biological material to
'terrorists.'"
Noting Mueller's 2003 WMD testimony is
not an attempt to undermine him or his investigation, something Maté also makes clear.
But it does serve as an important reminder that "intelligence" can be flat-out wrong. It
reminds us how these scenarios, which so much of Washington and the elite class fully endorse,
can be looked back on as lapses of reason years later.
Mass psychology is real. Political classes and parties are not immune.
"Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true,"
Maté asks. "Hacking e-mails and voter databases is certainly a crime, and seeking to
influence another country's election can never be justified."
He continues, "But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that
stealing e-mails and running juvenile social-media ads amount to an 'attack,' even an 'act of
war,' are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed."
The U.S. could have certainly used less hyperbole and more sobriety in 2002 and 2003.
And there's good chance that when the history books are written about American politics
circa 2018, much of Russiagate will be dismissed as more Red Scare than Red Dawn .
With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security
concerns to the level of existential threat based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind
of thinking has already proven to be dangerous.
We don't know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come
forth, but it's easy to see how, even if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from
now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of fact, but political
identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history.
No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially
damaging information about Trump and Russia that may yet emerge.
Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans' Iraq
fantasy.
All this may be as Hunter would have it. Yet there is the nagging doubt that Trump, who could
only find major financing for his enterprises following his last bankruptcy through
Putin-controlled banks, could be free of any entangling ties or obligations. And if those
doubts prove true, what then?
From the Nation: "From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the
unverified claims of U.S. government officials and other sources, most of them unnamed."
This is a key point, because now Democrats and the most of the Left are ready to embrace a
guy like Brennan a.k.a. Mr. Torture, merely because they hate Trump.
I'll also admit to not knowing what's coming in the future, but as of now there's a strong
circumstantial case to be made that this reactions to Russian election meddling, which when all
was said and done amounted to providing the voting public with the truth about the DNC and its
own election-fixing operation, that this reaction is only about losing the 2016 presidential
election to a guy who was only given a 1% chance of winning by almost everyone.
This is the most sensible commentary on "Russiagate" I have seen anywhere in a long time.
At present, there is some suggestive evidence in the public arena, but nothing
conclusive.
What we probably need, actually, is a moratorium on commentary about this until the
investigation reaches its conclusion. That can take a long time. But until then, the endless
partisanship-motivated speculation we hear daily is, frankly tiresome.
Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your temperate perspective on this. I wish this would be the last
word on the subject until the investigation ends.
'"Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.'
I suspect I agree with the author's sentiment, but it is not easy to tell.
Who stands accused? Trump? Russia? Both?
The claim that Trump is colluding with Russia is not the same as the claim that Iraq War
opponents were colluding with Saddam Hussein.
The manufactured "Russia!" hysteria campaign orchestrated by the Obama/Clinton Democratic
Party leadership, as deplorable and dubious as it might be, has nothing in common with the "5th
column" smears Sullivan et.al. were peddling in 2002-2003 and beyond.
The claim that Trump committed "treason" would be legally incorrect on the worst case.
Without a formal Congressional declaration of war, we are not at war with Russia, and Russia is
not the enemy, no matter how much irresponsible mouthbreathing is broadcast from the biparty
Congress members. However corrupt and corrupted Trump may be, corruption does not qualify as
treason. If corruption were treason, Congress, in support of Israel and Saudi Arabia at the
expense of the US (and certainly not in support of Russia) would be a house of traitors.
In comparison, the claim that opponents of the Iraq war were traitors was not just idiotic,
but morally inexcusable. If anybody violated their oath, it was Bush himself, his appointees,
and the ranking officers of the US military, for issuing illegal orders and/or following
them.
"Russian election meddling" is the new WMD only the extent it is used as a pretext for war
against Russia. It is the new "stained dress" in the attempt to challenge the ballot and
paralyze an inconvenient President. I have no doubt that the Clintons are corrupt, and the GOP
has engaged in many a Congressional effort to "investigate". The Clinton campaign adopted this
playbook, and the damage to the Republic done by all is growing every day.
The real corruption here is the pretense that Congress is any better than Trump, that
Russian oligarchs have more impact on the eroding Republic than Israeli-American, Saudi and UAE
oligarchs, and that the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections and the franchise is
Russia, and not the Roberts Court, Democrat apparatchiks like Sunstein, or Republican frauds
like Kobach. Both parties are actively conspiring and plotting to make sure our votes are
meaningless and cannot harm incumbents and the war profiteering classes, and where there used
to be an opposition to illegal war and to oligarchs and plutocrats, there is now willing
participation in manufactured hysteria to extend the 2016 campaign indefinitely.
WMDs? The very concept is a scam -- there is nukes, and nothing else. Nuclear arsenals
outsized to end us all, and trillion dollar waste to expand them, are the tie that binds the US
and Russia, and I suspect that Russia would be a lot more rational about reducing those
arsenals than the US. If the author wants to worry about ending up on the wrong side of
history, he should stop worrying about partisan points and focus. Politics is not a team
sports, and anybody who picks a favorite is a failure as a citizen. Nobody who wants power is
suitable for it.
Ask yourself, if Saddam Hussein had had "WMD" -- say, some of those chemical and biological
stocks Reagan envoy Rumsfeld helpfully provided to Saddam Hussein -- would that have made the
Iraq invasion legal, right just, necessary, successful? Or if Powell's little phials and mobile
weapons labs actually existed?
Heck, let's say Saddam managed to make actual nukes out of tubes that weren't and yellowcake
that wasn't. North Korea has nukes. Does that make invasion and aggressive war legal, right,
just necessary, successful?
WMD or not was a lie wrapped within a deception inside a fraud. That's the one thing that it
has in common with "Russiagate". Every layer, every aspect of it is a lie, a distraction, and
everybody -- Trump included -- is perpetuating the hysteria for their own benefit. The
stupidity of it is only barely rivaled by the mendacity.
Trump is proving to be the Republican Alger Hiss. The partisanship of 1948 quickly crystallized
into pro- and anti-Hiss camps in which the then limited evidence was trumped by ideology. It
was not until the Verona tapes were released in the early 1990s that Hiss was proven to be
guilty. Had Nixon and his allies called for a special prosecutor in 1948 and the facts both
open and classified been examined intensely, Hiss would never have become the progressive
Victim that he was to be for over thirty years. Ditto with Trump. Absent Mueller's
investigation, these accusations against Trump (and I believe them to have serious weight and
substance as well as potential for policy changes to prevent election fraud) would be mere
ideological shrapnel to be argued over for another thirty years. Let the investigations proceed
unimpeded and a final accounting be published at the very least for the sanity and integrity of
the Republic. Don't let Trump become the Right's Alger Hiss.
In other words, let's imagine that Putin has really tried to change election results. Let's
imagine that Trump really has been bribed by Russian oligarchs.
Is that why we are at this juncture? Is that why Congress has not served the People and
upheld the Constitution in decades? Is that why citizens and voters lose trust in our
institutions, and doubt election results?
Really?
We cannot even own up to our own mistakes, our own greed, our own malignancy. We have to
blame it not on our "business partners" and "allies" and their hundreds of billions of dollars
of arms purchases, we will blame it on Russia.
How small we have become.
It is not just Trump, it is Congress. It is not just this administration and this Congress,
it is the previous ones, and the ones before it, and so on.
The point is not whether or not the "Russia!" hysteria and the allegations against Trump are
accurate or not. The point is that, in comparison to everything else, it would just be more of
the same, and we brought it upon ourselves.
@Collin-
Isn't it extremely Orwellian to say that 'information isn't really information/should be
censored or disregarded if it comes from a subversive (Russia) source'?
Naturally, it allows for a very easy way to control and censor information.
Now, as far as pure security threats, aside from information that should've been public
anyway, experts deem that the DNC information came from on site:
Now this is also an appeal to authority, but VIPs has a better track record and I've seen
them actually elaborate on their claims, not just assert them.
MAGNITSKIY MOVIE. An authorised
version is available on Vimeo here. I urge you to watch it: not only
does it complete destroy Browder's case, it is an interesting detective process as the
film-maker gradually perceives the inconsistencies and manipulations. Browder's story has been
extremely important at setting up the anti-Russia dancing mania : if it's a lie, then what?
'Bill Browder Should Be in Jail' Says Philip Giraldi, Widely Respected Pundit and Retired
CIA Officer The Browder story keeps getting more and more airplay, and it is not
complimentary to him. Patrick Fleming 10 min ago | 29
13 Giraldi, one of
the most popular writers on the conservative Unz.com , is one of the superstars of the alt-media landscape. He has
been outspoken about the pernicious effects of Israel and wealthy pro-Israeli American Jews on
American politics. You can see many of his articles on RI here .
This was from a radio interview with Lee Stranahan, formerly of Breitbart, now with Sputnik,
the Russian state-owned news agency.
You can listen to the whole thing here. Key quotes below:
"He's basically been the one who appears on the networks, appears before Congress," "
"He is someone that they've [US officials] decided has to be the spokesperson in terms of
what's going on in Russia, and yet he has a hidden agenda as a potential criminal."
"I think the story is growing; I'm seeing more and more references to Browder in a
negative way."
"The problem is that we have to get this at a level where Browder is doing his damage, and
that's in the mainstream media, places like The New York Times, and also to have some people
in Congress begin to speak up and say, 'Hey, what about the Magnitsky Act and everything that
we did to provoke a crisis with Russia based on what Browder was telling us?'".
"Once you understand that, you realize that Browder, if anything, should be in jail."
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the
images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon
it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider .
It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
"... In the fifties, the most effective sanction was terror. Almost any publicity from HUAC meant the 'blacklist'. Without a chance to clear his name, a witness would suddenly find himself without friends and without a job ..."
"... clear this whole Russian thing up ..."
"... best democracy money can buy ..."
"... tough on Russia ..."
"... @Robert_Bridge ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Starting around WWI, the US has experienced at least three waves of anti-Russia sentiment.
What is unique about today's Russophobia is that it's not based on ideological differences, but
rather raw political brinkmanship. When viewing particular chapters of American history, it
becomes evident that US leaders have a tendency to believe, or feign to believe, that Americans
are totally incapable of acting and thinking for themselves. We the ignorant sheeple are simply
unqualified to act as independent agents in times of crisis. Instead, the American people are
being manipulated like marionettes at the hands of some foreign puppet master, which, as we
have been reminded of late on numerous occasions, is Russia.
Russophobia in the US has deep roots. In 1919, coming just after WWI and the Russian
Revolution, an imagined Bolshevik bogeyman was seen as the force behind a series of domestic
upheavals, like the Seattle General Strike when 65,000 workers walked off their jobs for five days, and the
Boston Police Strike, which saw officers protesting for better wages and conditions.
The rationale to explain those past social seizures sounds strikingly familiar today: any
American who dares speak out on some domestic issue must be under the subtle influence of a
Kremlin indoctrination campaign.
The mythical beast from the east raised its head again in the 1950s as Senator Joseph
McCarthy launched a political witch hunt against suspected communist sympathizers in various
fields, including government, education and labor. In a sign of repressive times to come,
Americans were subjected to show trials conducted by the 'House Un-American Activities
Committee (HUAC),' a public spectacle that systematically ruined the lives of hundreds of
citizens under specious claims.
In Hollywood alone, an estimated 300 industry names, including Charlie Chaplin and Orson
Welles, were placed on blacklists. Chaplin, eventually ostracized from Hollywood, was forced to
flee the country for Switzerland; Welles, under similar duress, also fled to Europe, becoming a "
wandering European filmmaker ."
An article in the Harvard Crimson summed up the
'reign of terror' then gripping the nation: " In the fifties, the most effective sanction
was terror. Almost any publicity from HUAC meant the 'blacklist'. Without a chance to clear his
name, a witness would suddenly find himself without friends and without a job ."
Today, 'McCarthyism' is a synonym for leveling accusations of subversive activities or even
treason without providing any sort of evidence. Yet it seems Americans have discarded that part
of their history, much to the dismay of US-Russia relations.
This leads us to a bit of modern insanity known as Russiagate, a political show trial whose
leading instigators make Joseph McCarthy look like a levelheaded statesman by comparison. After
all, there were some grounds for suspicion on both sides of the US-Soviet ideological divide
that makes McCarthyism somewhat understandable. Indeed, it must have certainly discomfited the
Washington elite that some Americans were becoming increasingly attracted to communism as the
ugly side of capitalism – magnified by the earlier deprivations of the Great Depression -
was being revealed.
Compared to previous American 'Red Scares,' Russiagate lacks any ideological mat where one
may lay the blame for the bilateral breakdown. Instead, it is a dangerous game of political
brinkmanship between the two main - I would argue only - US political parties in a desperate
bid for seizing the ultimate reins of power. In fact, Russia is an innocent bystander caught in
a domestic crackup. This is proven by the fact that the accusers have failed to produce any
physical evidence to substantiate the claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential
election.
One way for the grand inquisitors to quickly wrap up their Russiagate probe is to have
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange - who has previously
declared his desire to " clear this whole Russian thing up " – safely
provide testimony before US lawmakers. And 'safely' is the key word here. Although the US
Senate Intelligence Committee has sent a formal request for Assange to appear before them in
person, the likelihood of such a public spectacle – which would certainly be the media
event of the year – seems highly unlikely. After all, one of the main reasons the
WikiLeaks editor is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London is that he believes the
British authorities will extradite him to the US, where yet another group of US lawmakers have
vowed to prosecute him for publishing hundreds of thousands of classified US military and
diplomatic documents. Meanwhile, testifying via video conference also seems unrealistic since
the Ecuadorian government of President Lenín Moreno has terminated Assange's internet
access. So much for getting to the bottom of Russiagate.
BREAKING: US Senate Intelligence Committee calls editor @JulianAssange to testify. Letter
delivered via US embassy in London. WikiLeaks' legal team say they are "considering the offer
but testimony must conform to a high ethical standard". Also: https://t.co/pPf0GTjTlppic.twitter.com/TrDKkCKVBx
What this means is that the US political system, not 'Russian hackers,' is the ultimate
source of our current malaise. Since there is no real third party to challenge the status quo,
Donald Trump himself represented this crucial missing link of the US political system. And
since he promised on the campaign trail to do some very radical things, such as scale back
America's global military footprint and end hostilities with Russia, two of the biggest
money-making rackets on the planet, the Establishment was forced to act.
After all, there is simply too much money and power at stake in the US political system -
the " best democracy money can buy ," as the journalist Greg Palast described it - to
allow a renegade real estate developer and TV personality to just walk in and destroy it
overnight. Thus, once it became apparent that Trump would most likely win the 2016 election (it
is my personal opinion that the likelihood of a Trump victory was known well in advance,
despite, or precisely because of, what the mainstream media polls predicted in
one uniform voice), the elite rolled out 'Red Scare III' in a desperate bid to bury the
Republican powerhouse and keep control of the US political machinery.
So, what we have here is the US political system, suffering the malignancy of its own
internal contradictions, essentially feeding off its own tail in order to survive just the
short term. The remedies that the maverick Donald Trump - a 'third-party candidate' who was
clever enough to outmaneuver the most ruthless political gamesters in the business - was
willing to impose in order to return some normalcy to US foreign policy were rejected, much to
the detriment of global peace and security.
The problem with the US 'Deep State' exerting pressure on the White House over Russia is
obvious: it has forced Donald Trump, who is certainly mindful of approaching Midterm elections,
to go to dangerous extremes to demonstrate that he is " tough on Russia ." Just this
week he announced new sanctions against Russia over the British 'Skripal affair,' which
involved the miraculous recovery and subsequent disappearance of former double agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter after allegedly being exposed to the Novichok nerve agent, yet another
groundless smear job against Russia.
Although Russia certainly understands that it is being used as a convenient scapegoat in a
bitter battle between two entrenched US political parties that threatens United States' very
survival, it will have no choice but to respond in some manner to such aggressive actions.
To say that is an unfortunate turn of events, when Trump had initially promised a new day in
US-Russia relations on the campaign trail, would be the understatement of the century.
"... "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law." ..."
"... Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." ..."
"... This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
– Globalism
– open borders
– anti-Russia, Iran
– American hegemony which means endless wars
– support for gay marriage
– anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues
aren't as clearcut anymore.
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
Bingo! It looks like neocons and neoliberals joined forces to fight the rise of "populism"
which should probably be more properly called "the crisis of neoliberalism." To a certain
extent, the current "NeverTrumplists" neo-McCarthyism campaign is the behavior of a wounded
neoliberal beast (I am not sure why they have such an allergic reaction to Trump who in
domestic policies is 100% neoliberal and in foreign policy is 66% neocon.)
They try to suppress dissent under the smoke screen of "commitment to democracy and core
democratic principles" because, as you can guess, this is very important "at a time when the
character of our societies is at stake." The character of the neoliberal society in the USA
and EU to be exact.
Ironically, those "defenders of democracy" are interested in the issue of democracy even
less than former Soviet nomenklatura. All they want is to kick the "classic neoliberalism"
can down the road (and, as a side effect, preserve their lucrative sinecures; this is
especially visible with Max Boot in his recent interviews )
As Professor Paul Gottfried
noted about the recent alliance of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP):
Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?
Presumably, it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as
personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban.
Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing with its
villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue
different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and
respect the rule of law."
It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other
right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have
disrespected their countries' legal traditions.
Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!)
to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances
and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is
to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's
cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and
nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about
Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values."
This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its
advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from
whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."
"... One thing the russians convinced me about is the fact that i do not trust the ukraine either, the first days are critical to prove something and just at that moment they shoot the area. ..."
One thing the russians convinced me about is the fact that i do not trust the ukraine
either, the first days are critical to prove something and just at that moment they shoot the
area.
As a dutchman which country suffers the most is only one thing important:Who did it?We
want to know and bring them to justice. Complete families where shot out of the sky with 80
children on board.Words can not not discribe how their loved ones feel.
Over the years, though, agreements with Russia to reduce nuclear arms have not followed a straight path of success.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush announced his intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by announcing that the INF Treaty might no longer be in Russia's
interests. Russia had ratified START II in 2000 but pulled out of the treaty after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM
Treaty.
Most recently, New START took effect in 2011. In addition to placing
a cap
of 1,550 on deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a nearly three-quarters drop from START, New START also cut
in half
the allowable number of strategic nuclear-delivery vehicles, such as missile launchers and heavy bombers.
New START expires in 2021. If either side allows it to simply sunset, it will be the first time in several decades
that a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia lapses.
... ... ...
Rand Paul
is
the junior United States Senator from Kentucky.
It took more than 20 years for littoral states of the Caspian Sea to reach an agreement that
would lay the legal foundations for the full utilization of the region's resources. The Fifth
Caspian Summit in Aktau, Kazakhstan, brought the long-sought breakthrough after leaders of
Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Iran signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea
– a remarkable feat considering that heretofore, barring bilateral deals, the Caspian has
been governed by an obsolete 1940 convention between the Soviet Union (of which four current
littoral states were a part) and Iran.
As the current Convention incorporates a plethora of tradeoffs between countries, let's look
at them in greater detail so as to grasp the implications of the deal.
The Convention stipulates that relations between littoral states shall be based on
principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, equality among members, non-use of
threat of force (it was only 17 years ago that Azerbaijan and Iran almost started a full-blown
naval war over contested fields) and non-intervention.
The military-related clauses of the document can be considered a net diplomatic success for
the Russian Federation as it prohibits the physical presence of any third-party armed forces,
along with banning the provision of a member state's territory to acts of aggression against
any other littoral state. Since Russia is by far the most power nation in terms of both general
military clout and military presence around the Caspian, this will placate Russian fears about
any potential US (or other) encroachment in the area.
Then there's energy... Although the Convention establishes a general legal framework for
territorial disputes to be solved, it refrains from any particularities. Therefore prolonged
negotiations are to be expected with regard to many disputed oilfields, stemming predominantly
from Irani and Azerbaijani claims . Iran advocated throughout the entire negotiation process an
egalitarian approach to delimiting the seabed (each nation would get 20% of the coast), running
counter the other countries' aspirations. The things is that when Russia concluded its seabed
delimitation agreements with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan in 2001 and 2003, respectively, the
parties split their parts using the median line. Point 8.1. effectively keeps the delimitation
task in the hands of relevant governments, thereby providing a very modest boost to the
demarcation of the Southern Caspian (the Northern part is fully delimited).
There are two main territorial conflicts to be settled – the Irani-Azerbaijani and the
Azerbaijani-Turkmen disputes. The row between Baku and Teheran revolves around the
Araz-Alov-Sharg field (discovered in 1985-1987 by Soviet geologists), the reserves of which are
estimated at 300 million tons of oil and 395 BCm of natural gas. Even though the field is only
90 kilometers away from Baku and should seemingly be under Azerbaijan's grip, if one is to draw
a straight line from the Azerbaijani-Irani border most of the field ought to be allotted to
Iran (the median would keep most of it in Azerbaijan). As those old enough to remember the 2001
naval ship hostilities would attest, it does matter at what angle the final line is drawn.
The Serdar/Kapaz field (estimated to contain 50 million tons of oil) is the bone of
contention between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Considered to be an extension of Azerbaijan's
main oil-producing unit, the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli field, Baku sees it as an indispensable
element in its quest to mitigate decreasing oil output numbers. Geographically, Serdar/Kapaz is
closer to Turkmenistan, yet here too Azerbaijan might come out the ultimate winner. The
Apsheron peninsula stretches out some 60km into the Caspian Sea, in effect extending
Azerbaijan's geographical reach. Absent previous demarcation agreements between Baku and
Ashgabat, the settlement will once again boil down to getting the angles right, as in the case
of Araz-Alov-Sharg. However, it must be said that a resolution might come about as a by-product
of new gas endeavors.
Clause 14, dealing with laying subsea pipelines and cables, is the one most coveted by
energy analysts , since it has the potential to significantly alter Europe's gas supply
options.
According to point 14.2., all parties have the right to construct subsea pipelines given
that they comply with environmental standards (which are particularly strict in the Caspian
Sea). With no further caveat included, some analysts might be tempted to think that Russia will
inevitably use the "environmental protection" card when trying to stop the construction of the
Trans-Caspian pipeline (TCP) from Turkmenistan, a pipeline it spent many years to halt .
Under current circumstances, when US-Russian relations falling ever deeper into an
insurmountable ditch, Moscow's decision to allow for the construction of the mightily
Washington-backed TCP to take place might be perceived as a massive omission.
Since the Turkmen gas is unlikely to find demand in Azerbaijan or Turkey, it would need to
take the whole route via the South Caucasus Pipeline, TANAP and TAP. Merely the transportation
tariffs from these pipelines would render any transportation economically unviable unless
European gas prices rise substantially to levels above $300/MCm. Moreover, the estimated cost
of building the subsea TCP of $2 billion is a disabling burden for either Türkmengaz or
SOCAR. Thus, allowing the construction of Trans Caspian gas pipelines might be a brilliant ruse
from the Russians – cognizant of all the deficiencies above, they can wield it as a sign
of good will in their never-ending negotiations with the European the economics for supplying
gas to Europe via the Southern Gas Corridor are far from being Union.
This being said, there are natural impediments to see the TCP implemented anytime soon.
Azerbaijan might be interested in getting transit fees for Turkmen natural gas, yet it lacks
the required infrastructure to include the above volumes in its traditional conduit via
Turkey.
All in all, the Caspian convention is a good basis for further negotiations, even though it
falls short of being an all-encompassing legal framework. Territorial disputes will most likely
remain frozen for quite some time and no new gas pipeline projects will see the light of day
unless market conditions change.
Patient Observer says:
August 6, 2018 at 1:46 pmPublic opinion polling suggests that many Americans would
not think twice if there were a great many casualties against evildoers. For example, a
2017 survey found that 60 percent of Americans would support a nuclear attack on Iran that
would kill 20 million civilians, to prevent an invasion that might kill 20,000 American
soldiers.
"We were not surprised by the finding that most Americans place a higher
value on the life of an American soldier than the life of a foreign noncombatant.
What was surprising, however, was the radical extent of that preference.
Our experiments suggest that the majority of Americans find a 1:100 risk ratio
to be morally acceptable. They were willing to kill 2 million Iranian civilians to
save 20,000 U.S. soldiers. One respondent who approved of the conventional
air strike that killed 100,000 Iranian civilians candidly expressed even more
extreme
preferences regarding proportionality and risk ratios, while displacing
U.S. responsibility for the attack onto the Iranian people: "I would sacrifice
1 million enemies versus 1 of our military. Their choice, their death."
But the state of American 'journalism' is such that the media must portray America as
winning, and will not acknowledge catastrophe until major damage has already been done, because
it is patriotic to report on American success.
FYI Officials from three leading US groups that support increased exports of US LNG separately
addressed concerns on Aug. 3 over the Chinese Ministry of Commerce's announcement that
tariffs ranging 5-25% will be imposed on US LNG.
"China's retaliation will hit America's energy industry particularly hard," said
American Petroleum Institute Vice-Pres. for Regulatory and Economic Policy Kyle Isakower.
"American oil and gas already hit by US tariffs on industrial products and specialty steel
essential to our industry will now be faced with Chinese tariffs on critical US exports,
affecting American jobs that rely directly and indirectly on the energy industry."
August 5, 2018 at 7:17 pm Oh, look; Ukraine already is down to about half the gas in
storage that it will need for winter. Turning to the west certainly made it
'energy-independent' at least to the extent that the west must 'lend' it money to buy gas which
is reverse-flowed from eastern-European countries so that all the Russian is squeezed out of
it, and it becomes European freedom gas. Nice work if you can get it, and since Ukraine will
not be able to pay it back, it becomes a gift! Why worry, as long as Uncle Sugar is paying the
bills?
Speaking of gas, once-bitten-twice-shy Bulgaria is eager to get a piece of the action,
signifying up front its willingness to tap into Turkish Stream for transit to Europe.
There seems to be a tremendously broad American – and western – assumption that
US production is going to 'soar' and continue to ramp ever upward. Is it? Bear in mind that
the USA's own consumption of natural gas is growing steadily, at least partly based on this
assumption that natural-gas bounty will just continue to increase. What if it doesn't? Then
America will have refashioned itself as another huge natural-gas market which has
insufficient domestic supply to sustain itself.
The headline is pure tabloid and not supported in the body of the article apart from
'opinions' by certain people or through use of qualifiers. This is not journalism .
Only further proof in my opinion that Euractiv has become part of the EU's unofficial
channels of hybrid warfare . Euractiv/Neuters has also expanded in to the Balkans to
provide 'services' in Croatia/Serbia etc. which just so happens to coincide with all the
shrill headlines about Russia 'influencing the Balkans' – which are of course BS. Just
look at the map. Short of Macedonia (not for long) and Serbia, they are all NATO
states . Russia only helps states who want to help themselves (Syria/Serbia – more
or less).
Not a shred of proof, nay evidence, that Germany is shifting away from NordStream II. FAKE
NUDES!
Ten years ago, in August 2008, Russia and Georgia went to war over South Ossetia, a small
separatist Georgian region which Moscow would later controversially recognise as independent,
in the face of international criticism.
Ten years later, Moscow has still not softened its position towards its neighbours and
its rift with the West has only deepened.
Russia launched armed action against Georgia to come to the rescue of South Ossetia, a
small pro-Russian separatist region where Tbilisi had begun a military operation. The Russian
army rapidly outnumbered the Georgian forces and threatened to take the country's
capital.
A peace treaty was finally hammered out by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy that
led to the withdrawal of Russian forces. But Moscow recognised as independent the breakaway
regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where it has stationed a large military presence ever
since.
Russia demonstrated its military might over the five days and showed its readiness to
defend – by force, if necessary – its interests in the region it considers its
sphere of influence .
####
Well shove that in your pipe and smoke it!
Yet again, no attribution, no name. It smacks of a thinktank piece peddled through their
Slovak branch.
But this is how things work in the West. No-on is ordered on pain of death to produce
certain items, but is is made very clear that it is in their interests to do so, from
without & from within, but remember kids, it is voluntary ! Neither
self-censorship exists. Those in positions of influence may convince themselves, but for the
rest of the great unwashed, no so much. We've already seen the system fail and produce
not only BREXIT, but other referendums contrary to EU dogma. The evidence is all around us
and plain to see, but still the structures persist in the same old ways, which only bodes
ill. Apparently they still think the sheeple are too stupid to notice let alone act.
Out of all those that can be easily identified in the photograph above, I think it's safe to
say only two of them even knew about Putin. The rest died when Putin was a nobody, save for
Pralnikov, but he had been hospitalized on and off for a decade before he finally passed away
in 1997.
When you dig deeper into it, the trail of dead journalists, business competitors and local
officials in the wake of Boris Berezovsky's and Mikhail Khodorkovsky's 1990's escapades is
the most striking one by far. That was under Yeltsin's watch, needless to say, and we all
know what became of those two gentlemen when they finally ditched Russia for Switzerland and
the United Kingdom.
Among the journalists that have died since 2000, nearly all of which are attributed to
Putin in one way or another these days by lazy pundits (and politicians, and human rights
organizations etc), several curiously also probed Berezovsky. Then, you have a big bunch of
deaths that are routinely and grossly misrepresented e.g: https://fkriuk.blogspot.com/2008/02/audit-of-committee-to-protect.html
All in all, summing it up it's all a steaming pile of fake news.
"... Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics . ..."
It's time for everyone to come off Twitter – it is like writing your message on your
buttocks with a black sharpie and dropping your trousers. Tweets are the kind of stupid thing
you send out at the end of work after you've had a bastard of a day, and something you read
or hear pushes you over the edge. People in diplomatic posts should not be allowed to use
Twitter at all, and should be punished for doing so – reporters now avidly follow the
Twitter feed of anyone who is anyone, and pounce on anything that has not been thought
through before it can be deleted: an attempt to delete it is just the icing on the cake, an
admission that you shouldn't have said it.
Time was, diplomats ran everything they said in writing in an official capacity through a
review before it was released, it was parsed six ways from Sunday to see how it might be
spun, twisted or misinterpreted. Diplomats speaking in a live interview were careful to
remain vague and say nothing which might not have meant several different things. You did not
get countries straining to get at one another because of something the minister of
agriculture said. But now everybody feels they can speak for the government on Twitter. It's
hard to imagine how the various countries of the world could come to be represented by their
stupidest citizens.
I hope America does formally sanction the Russian finance and banking sector. They're
already doing it under the radar, and going formal would give Russia an excuse to dump SWIFT
and stop using it, as well as the US dollar. Mastercard and Visa would be gonzo, taillights,
possibly in China as well. America sanctioning the Russian financial sector would remove its
last ability to keep an eye on it easily.
Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that
Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent
and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as
uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the
US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics .
It's just diplo-speak, to mark the speaker as a civilized man and not a thug. That is
beginning to become a bit of a sore point – is there anyone left who actually believes
that because Russian diplomats say "our American friends" or "our American colleagues", that
they labour under a delusion that this is just a temporary spat and under it all they still
have brotherly connections? If so, let me disabuse all those people of that notion; the
Russian government and all its operatives are well aware that America is a self-declared and
thus committed enemy. But saying, "the Americans, our enemies" would make for tiresome
commentary in the western papers, in which ideologues would assess that this practice proved
the Russians are the aggressors while westerners are just trying to work it out.
Alternatively, they could lower themselves to the vernacular and instruct, "Listen up,
motherfuckers".
Russia understands that America is an enemy and not a friend of any description, just as
it understands the United Nations is an American-dominated body and that it is next to
useless to expect the UN to back any Russian initiative. It continues to go through the
motions in both cases, merely to underline who is following the rules and protocols set up by
a better and more aware global civilization than currently prevails, and who is just kicking
sand in the other's face and trying to get him to swing for the chin.
Very true. Poll after poll fails to show any concern by American citizens over Russian
"meddling" or Russian "assertiveness". Sure, questions can be posed such as "Should the US
resist the Russian invasion of xxxxx?". Naturally, the answer would likely be yes. But when
asked, without prompting, what concerns them, Russia does not register as a concern at any
level. I find this remarkable as anti-Russian news is often the lead on every network evening
news show. I can not recall a news broadcast for many months that did not include a
Russian-bashing story. The tipping point on media credibility may have been reached
Cut off titanium metals and fabrications to the West – Boeing shutdowns as well as
many other US aerospace operations;
Close off air space or charge much higher tariffs to US carriers using Russian airspace. US
airlines become non-competitive in many Asian and European markets;
Stop exporting LNG and other energy products to the US;
Raise taxes or shutdown US companies in Russia;
Stop exports of the RD-180 and 181 rocket engines.
Action 1 would have a devastating impact on US aerospace manufacturing. The US has little
ability to replace with domestic or foreign supplies. This action should be reserved in the
event of extremely aggressive US actions such as a direct military attack on Syria;
"... It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.' ..."
"... Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox. ..."
"... Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. ..."
The other backstory being that NATO wanted to stick its nose in the Caspian Sea, but has been
pushed out. Not sure exactly what the pretext was. I have a piece in VZGLIAD that explains the whole
thing, but I haven't worked through it yet, will probably do a piece on my own blog in the
near future. But I have a couple of other projects in the queue first.
Dick Cheney, among others, was convinced that the Caspian Basin holds massive deposits of oil
and gas and is strategically significant for that reason.
"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led
alliance. This would be a nightmare situation. We had better wake up to the dangers or one
day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more. The
potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would
give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance. The potential economic rewards of Caspian
energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect our investment if
necessary."
Mortimer Zuckerman
Editor, U.S. News and World Report
"This is about America's energy security. Its also about preventing strategic inroads
by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries
toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political
interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important
that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
Bill Richardson
Then-U.S. Secretary Energy (1998-2000)
It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these
were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty
of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not
long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because
it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have
control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.'
Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact,
Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not
support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the
White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations
to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial
and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important
tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox.
Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy
supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have
brought them closer to their dream. A pipeline network would have carried Caspian oil and gas
to Europe. Agreement among the Caspian nations was most definitely not in American interests,
and if you dig you will probably find American interventions to prevent that from coming
about.
"... Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride. ..."
"... Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are potentially stupid dangerous. ..."
"... I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian. Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA. ..."
"... Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back and see the bigger picture ..."
"... I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to get elsewhere. ..."
"... The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling. But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical damage on Russian society and Russian people. ..."
"... It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate. ..."
Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and
trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those
from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would
subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride.
Mr. Putin's popularity with the Russian people rests largely on their confidence that he
is looking out for them, and always carefully balancing risk with reward. If Russia were run
by somebody like Erdogan, the west would have succeeded in overthrowing him ages ago.
Russia is in a good position to resist sanctions, because Washington dares not impose
restrictions on its trade in oil and gas. While it would be wrong to assume Russia has
nothing else, these are core industries and in the other sectors where Russia is strong, the
west does not buy much from it anyway except for steel and raw materials. Russia can easily
replace those markets. But western brands who spent decades building up their market in
Russia slowly and carefully have lost it almost overnight. And they will be a long, long time
getting it back.
PCR's sources of information probably focus too much on the doings of the Central Bank of
Russia and not enough on other sources of advice that the Russian government might rely on.
You wonder whether PCR or his researchers are aware that the Russians and the Chinese might
be mocking the US in the statements and policies they choose to make public.
Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like
turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is
clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to
the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are
potentially stupid dangerous.
I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech
which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as
well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian.
Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA.
Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO
restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this
opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back
and see the bigger picture.
I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from
Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to
get elsewhere.
I also agree Russia should keep on supplying the EU with energy, for a couple
of reasons. One, any interruption in the supply is just what Washington and its Atlanticist
Eurobuddies are looking for so they can label Russia an unreliable partner, and start that
whole alternative-sources conversation again: it's why they want to keep Ukraine in the loop
– to initiate disruptions and promote uncertainty about the reliability of Russian gas.
Two, Russia has a good chance of splitting factions in Europe off from the USA, as the latter
is more and more perceived to be trying to boss the European energy market so as to secure a
captive customer for its own exports. The last thing Russia needs is to create the impression
that Washington is saving Europe instead of dicking it around.
"The new round of sanctions this week unleashed by the United States on Russia has only
one meaning: the US rulers want to crush Russia's economy. By any definition, Washington is,
in effect, declaring war on Russia.
The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about
them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling.
But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical
damage on Russian society and Russian people.
It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl
von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate."
All these articles are hysterical pap. The events after 2014 have demonstrated that Russia is
immune to western sanctions and actually massively benefits from them. It has also shown that
it can rapidly react to changing financial conditions as seen in the offloading of $230
billion in foreign debt in 2015. The current round of "the mother of all sanctions" trash
talk from Washington is desperate and pathetic failure.
Russia has no reason or incentive for war. It is NATzO that wants to take Russia out.
Russia will adjust to the new sanctions by become fully independent of any western financial
or economic links. Russia has the critical economic mass to by an autarchy. But it does not
need to be since it will keep on trading with most of the planet. NATzO accounts for 11% of
the global population (but thinks it is 100%). The congenital retards who run NATzO are
helping China to become the next premier financial power. The Yuan will replace the dollar by
necessity if not by choice.
I want to see the writers of this scaremongering garbage list the actual economic impacts
on Russia. Starting with the financial ones. Russia does not depend on foreign currencies. It
also does not depend on foreign loans like some banana republic. The current claims by the
chimps in Congress that they will bring Russia's economy to its knees are the same BS as
during the post Banderite Kiev coup sanctions which Obama was sure were going to cut Russia
down.
There is some truth in what you say but nevertheless I think you quite underestimate the
threat of US sanctions. One doesn't have to be an unabashed fan of Ben Aris to accept some of
the points that he makes in the following article.
http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-us-declares-economic-war-on-russia-146707/?source=blogs
In any case, I am a fan of Eric Kraus and he has serious concerns- check out some of his
comments here, say, for example, 7 minutes in.
Eric Kraus apparently thinks that Russian enterprises need to borrow dollars or euro from the
west. He is dead wrong. Russia can get all the dollars and euro it needs via the exports of
oil and gas, minerals, military equipment, nuclear power plants and assorted other exports
over $400 billion US per year. That was the point of my post: Uncle Scumbag's sanctions on
financial transactions do not cut Russia off, they cut the US and the EU off from the Russian
market. We are back to 2014 and these new "mother of all sanctions" will be as useless as the
previous round.
As for Japan, it is a useless comparison. Pearl Harbour was triggered by the US trying to
cut Japan off from vital resources. Non financial ones. Nobody can cut Russia either from
natural resources or the financing it needs. But Russia can f*ck the EU over big time by
cutting off natural gas exports. As the rabid mutt in Washington tries to go for broke,
Russia should keep diverting natural gas eastward. Let Uncle Scumbag save the EU with the
spare LNG he doesn't have.
Yes, the analogy between prewar Japan and Russia is false. It can be argued that it is
exactly the opposite. Russia has the resources that the West needs and if Russia were to cut
those off, the West could be induced to launch a war of desperation as Japan did. If Russia
is "walking on eggs" that is why.
Russia also can borrow whatever money it needs to from China. China probably has more than
enough to lend of its own, but if it does not, it is under no restrictions against borrowing
from western banks, and those banks have no control over how that money is reallocated.
I commented on the Pearl Harbour episode simply to make the point that the proposed sanctions
are a very aggressive move- this is clearly how the Russian government sees them, and rightly
so. If these sanctions clip a percent or so of Russian GDP growth for the foreseeable future
then they are very damaging for the country. Frankly, I would not be very sanguine about
Russia's long term future if it were not for China, and I continue to back Kraus's opinion
over Kirill's This earlier article by Aris sets the stage reasonably well- it's obvious
weakness is that the role of China is not taken into account
. http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-russio-delenda-est-140787/?source=blogs
A further point. No matter how creative Russia's scientists and engineers might be, it
beggars belief to imagine that any country can compete technologically long term if largely
isolated by the rest of the World. Again, this further emphasizes how critical China is
likely to be for Russia's well being.
Russia needs China and China needs Russia if it wants to remain a sovereign nation.
I would add that the US is in a very fragile state burdened by a stagnate economy despite
massive deficit spending in addition to a crumbling global empire. Russia may simply need to
ride out the storm and let nature takes it course relative to the US.
The chimps in Congress can't see past their own noses and think that borrowing and debt is
what sustains the Russian economy. Their bubble of delusion has no bearing on Russian
reality. They are currently engaged in "the definition of insanity is to repeat the same
failed approach over and over and expect a different result". You can't cut Russia off from
western banks more than once and there is obviously no cumulative impact from such sanctions.
On what basis do you estimate 1% GDP growth reduction (or contraction?) for the foreseeable
future? Kraus needs to make a case and not just engage in proof by assertion. How can we have
the same restrictions to banking access that were imposed in 2014 all of the sudden starting
to matter now? That is just ludicrous. Cutting off access to NATzO banks in 2014 was the
limit of what NATzO could do. It can't go into Russia and shut down Russian banks to prevent
Russian companies from financing themselves there or from the Russian government.
Anyway, too much obscure mush and utter lack of details. These "mother of all sanctions"
are a joke because the 2014 sanctions did most of the "damage".
But for how long can the rest of the world (meaning, I suppose, the United States and western
Europe, which seem together to think they are The World) keep it up? Long enough to bring
Russia down? I frankly doubt it. America needs trade for its corporations to flourish and
expand market share, and it is not achieving that through sanctions and tariffs. The USA is
not just taking on Russia; it is making enemies everywhere. The global economy is so
interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to death unless you can block
all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to Russia) without hurting Europe.
The present sanctions are lame and do not really do anything but get journalists excited
and use up paper. The sting is in the ones set to automatically go into effect in three
months, because to avoid them Russia must admit that it has a secret chemical-weapons
program, agree to shut it down and allow UN inspectors into the country to verify it has been
done. Perhaps Trump and his cabal gamble that Russia will cop to something it actually
doesn't have, just to avoid sanctions, as Gadaffi did. But Russia will not, while the
American attempt to bring more inconvenience and problems to the Russian people in an effort
to use them to bludgeon the government into doing Washington's bidding is about as shitty a
thing as America has ever done without involving weapons, since it offers no proof at all of
its conclusions. It is simply imposing collective punishment in order to get ts own way, and
would be the first to squeal if Russia did it.
"The global economy is so interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to
death unless you can block all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to
Russia) without hurting Europe."
"Like the Romans, the US has built a military-industrial economy that can massively
out-resource all its opponents' and so is impossible to defeat – a legacy of the rapid
militarisation during WWII when it simply out produced first the Nazis and then the Soviet
Union, the only other country on the planet at the time with any chance of matching the US's
industrial might"
Unlike the Reich the USA industrial base wasn't hampered by round the clock bombing from
the Eighth AirForce and the RAF , which also involved the diversion on billions of
Reichsmarks for thousands of planes and the Luftwaffe manpower in an attempt to stop or at
least mitigate the air attacks.
Likewise the USA industrial base was not hampered by having to -in a massive
undertaking-uproot its core manufacturing facilities and move them thousands of kilometers to
where they could be reassembled and resume production of machinery , armor and weaponry in
general.
Furthermore:
These are just a couple reasons for the fall of Rome, but what is perhaps most terrifying
about the fall are the corollaries to today. The Unites States of America has a Gini
coefficient of .45, and 40% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population.[5]
By every metric, the United States is even more divided and unfair than Rome before its fall.
The effects are perfectly evident as well as there is increasing inclination from the rich to
build fallout bunkers and withdraw from civilization and politics just as the roman elites
did centuries before. Worsening matters is the evidence of extreme racism towards migrant
workers who like slaves in Rome "take the labor from the hardworking middle class".
Increasingly the middle class shrinks as social unrest and bigotry grows. It is a scary
combination that, if we aren't careful, could spell the end of civilization as we know it,
just like it did for the Romans centuries before.
Therefore the Aris notion that USA can simply bide its time and wait for Russia to
collapse is suspect. If anything there may well be be a collapse but not Russia.
Agree with the sentiment but the Soviet Union outproduced the US in every industrial category
that mattered. Its military was much stronger than the US on land and in the air. On the sea,
the US probably had the edge.
The Soviet Union fell because its ideology provided no means to deal with psychos and
sociopaths. Religion, with all of its shortcomings, at least tried to address sociopathic
behaviors with such terms as sin, evil, etc. When religion left the building, there was
nothing left to stop the psychos and its kissing cousins, the Randites.
The West is immune from such dangers as it embraces sociopathyy. Russia, I believe, is
seeking a society that can withstand such assaults without heavy handed purges which only
provide temporary relief. The Orthodox Church ascendancy in modern Russia is helping to
provide that moral anchor to keep socciopathy from becoming the dominant world view. I think
even atheists can agree on the importance of its role in providing a stable and humane
society.
USA say that Russia did poison the Skripals in Salisbury.
"The US blamed the attack on Vladimir Putin and said they would be issuing fresh sanctions
in response to the deadly attack.
The state department says Wednesday the sanctions will be imposed on Russia because it
used a chemical weapon in violation of international law.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said: "The United States determined under the
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that
the government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation
of international law, or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own
nationals."
Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Novichok, a
military-grade nerve agent, in the British town of Salisbury in March."
What can I say – perhaps now Russia will batten down the hatches and stop all
this pandering to western partners.
No need to batten down the hatches. Just ignore the yapping NATzO chihuahuas. We have not
even had a proper trial to determine guilt. The US leadership is not some ultimate judicial
body. They can make as many political judgements as they want, but that will do Jack to
Russia.
At this point all the hysterical US-driven sanctions against Russia are totally self
defeating. The monkeys in Washington clearly think that Russia is a banana republic and that
it needs to have access to foreign money and technology to function. They are cleared fucked
in the head.
It would reportedly include more drastic measures, such as downgrading diplomatic
relations, banning the Russian airline Aeroflot from flying to the US and cutting off nearly
all exports and imports.
So, are we talking about RD-180 rocket engines and Americans traveling to the ISS on
Russian rockets? Are we talking about titanium fabrications that Boeing needs for its
aircraft manufacturing?
This Russian hysteria is masking something, something big. My one-track mind suggests
fixated on the idea of an approaching economic collapse and subsequent imposition of martial
law and/or massive levels of censorship; all to be blamed on Russia. The increasingly
frenetic pace of Russian hysteria suggests a near-term sh!t-storm is on the way.
The Russian hysteria is scary as so many citizens over there believe in the Russiagate
nonsense and have been manipulated to feel they have been attacked.
It means therefore that conditions have been created whereby the USA has the support to
attack back.
Putin should never have gone to Helsinki as that escalated the madness.
Trump is emasculated just as obama was and has no power to do anything to block this
pathway to outright confrontation
The Europeans will sit by and watch – Russia has no allies there.,
Europe will stay on the porch and let the big boys duke it out. In the red corner, we have
Vlad – the Terminator. In the other corner, we have Donald – the Orange Haystack.
In another corner we have Bruce – the Red Dragon.
Haystack lumbers out of his corner before the bell rings, makes some nasty gestures and
starts his victory dance. The Terminator stands in his corner, muscular arms folded across
his chest with a wry smile across his face. The Red Dragon is closely studying Haystack with
an inscrutable stare. Haystack exhausts himself and collapses mid-ring. The Terminator and
Red Dragon leave the arena as the Haystack fans seek their autographs. Something like
that.
Perhaps a boxed piano will fall from a ninth-floor balcony and crush Nauert to a rectangular
pizza. I'd pay to see that.
Define 'pandering'. Can you name some concessions the United States has wrung from Russia
in the last two years? I seem to recall the British investigators said there was no proof
that anyone in the Russian government was involved – they simply speculated that
because Novichok could only be made in a state facility, there must be state involvement.
Does the USA have some evidence that the British have not seen yet? Perhaps they found it in
the same place they filed their satellite photography of the Buk missile taking out MH17.
You mean the same Russia that is one of only 7 nation states to have verifiably dismantled
and destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles as ratified by the OPCW and in compliance to
the CWC? That Russia?
I can't wait for this determination to be made public along with the coinciding evidence
as released by an official judiciary body wielding the requisite jurisdiction and authority
under official auspices of the UN. That's what is meant by determined right? Pretty
unambiguous terminology there.
This entire charade has gone so far beyond farce it's not even comical anymore, just
depressing.
That's an interesting point, because a likely consequence of the continued hysterical
hostility from the west will be opacity where there once was transparency; ie: if the United
States wants to know something about Russian unconventional weapons programs, it will have to
go to extensive and complicated labour to insert a deep-cover spy or persuade an asset that
it can trust to find out the information, never knowing if it is being fed disinformation
deliberately by a double agent, where once it could simply have asked and been invited to
verify the truth itself. International organizations controlled by Washington will be less
and less likely to have a free pass to come in and poke about as they see fit.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has warned the US that any sanctions targeting Russian banking
operations and currency trade will be treated as a declaration of economic war and retaliated
against by any means necessary.
" If they introduce something like a ban on banking operations or the use of any currency,
we will treat it as a declaration of economic war. And we'll have to respond to it
accordingly – economically, politically, or in any other way, if required ,"
Medvedev said during a trip to the Kamchatka region.
" Our American friends should make no mistake about it ," he emphasized.
"... Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU – remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute' which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing, if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year ago? ..."
I suppose few were under any apprehension that Trump would not sign the sanctions bill
reimposing American sanctions on Iran. Consequently, most will be unsurprised that he did so.
Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU –
remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute'
which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while
Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with
demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing,
if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts
must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such
authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to
allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national
courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year
ago?
I need hardly draw attention to the unmitigated and brazen arrogance of the stated US aim:
to "force the Iranians to the table for a renegotiation of their role in the Middle East".
They fucking live there, for God's sake, but the intent of the sanctions is to force them to
bow to American will, and accept the plans for them of a state which is more than 6,000 miles
away – yet insists on its right to direct and order regional affairs to its own
strategic and economic benefit.
Once upon a time, America's meddling in the Middle East could count on the support of all
the major western powers. For the time being, that practice is in abeyance, as the major
western allies try to bring about American failure. Goodwill toward the United States has
more or less evaporated completely, and America is increasingly regarded as an enemy by
former allies. I can't see any possibility of it prevailing, unless it starts a major war and
drags everyone into it. I can, however, see irreparable economic damage being inflicted on
the American economy.
If the EU will actually protect European companies from US enforcement/retaliation and compel
European companies to honor contracts with Iranian companies or government, that is big. But
why would they do such?
I speculate the US plan is to take Iranian oil off the market thereby driving up crude
prices. The downside is that it helps Russia (perhaps not a major concern for Trump) and
hurts China but it will be a boon for US oil frackers to the point of avoiding mass default
of loans and collapse of major US operations. If Nord Stream II can be stopped, US LNG may
surge as well assuming gas frackers can ramp up. And when Iran capitulates (in US dreams) US
companies will be granted special concessions to soak up Iranian oil revenues and the EU left
of the sidelines.
So the above could be some of the reasons for the EU's stiffening. Putin is probably
breaking out the popcorn.
The US has suddenly recollected that if it wants to take on China, it will actually need the
support of its traditional allies, and is supposedly launching a make-up effort, especially
where Europe is concerned.
Trump is such a boob; his policies are all over the place – first the hard-ass who
will never back off, then conciliatory and talking international unity. Anyone who would
willingly help that country achieve its goals needs their head examined, as it clearly will
turn on its traditional friends the instant it is unhappy with the relationship. Trump brags
that trade hardball is 'his thing', but that's just more of his stupid ego, and he appears to
not grasp many of its implications.
American farmers understand, though, all too well. It does not take a genius to figure
that a $12 Billion bailout fund suggests an assessment of a potential $12 Billion in damage
to the sector, which seems like a lot of money. But as agricultural economists correctly
deduce, the real damage is to long-term trade relationships, as customers repelled by
America's thug tactics turn to other suppliers. I already mentioned the new prominence in
Canadian supermarkets of identifying symbols to highlight Canadian products, and Canada is
the biggest export market by a considerable margin for American agricultural products. Canada
could not win in a trade war against the USA, but it could inflict serious damage on the
agricultural sector. Much of Canada is farm country just like south of the border, and all
the USA really has going for it in the way of growing-season advantage is California and
Florida. Products from there which are out of season in Canada can be purchased from Mexico.
Otherwise, pretty much anything you can grow in the USA, you can grow in Canada.
"... When Germany starts up talking again about 'negotiating from a position of strength', it should be slapped down as if it had said 'lebensraum'. ..."
"... Washington wants it, because Washington sees the world as existing to support the comfort and entertainment of Americans, but America cannot do it on its own, so von der Leyen is just doing America's bidding with the tough talk – the whole barnyard of European political elites needs to be cleaned out before there can be any hope of better relations, as they are all committed Atlanticists. ..."
"... But when NATO speaks of 'dealing from a position of strength', it means 'you know what will happen if your offer is not as expected'. In the NATO lexicon, there is no such situation as both sides dealing from a position of strength. ..."
Lovin' it: the recent call by the German Defense Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, to engage in
dialogue with Moscow only from a "position of unity and strength," Shoigu reminded his
counterpart that, while Russia seeks peace, it will not tolerate being coerced.
"After everything Germany has done to our country, I think, they should not talk on the
issue for another two hundred years," Shoigu said. "Ask your grandparents about their
experience of talking to Russia from the position of strength. They will probably be able to
tell you."
Exactly; it seems it was almost instantly impolite to remind the Germans of their Nazi past,
along with their aspiration to achieve their goals through military force. When Germany
starts up talking again about 'negotiating from a position of strength', it should be slapped
down as if it had said 'lebensraum'.
The EU has to know that it is not frightening Russia
with tough talk, and so it may as well cut it out. Russia by itself would squash the EU like
a bug if they could not go running to Uncle Sam, and NATO as a whole would have a tough time
with China and Russia – it's hard to say who would win, because military victory
depends on a lot of things and you can't plan for them all, but the scale of global
casualties would be so horrific it would be difficult to call any outcome 'victory'.
Washington wants it, because Washington sees the world as existing to support the comfort and
entertainment of Americans, but America cannot do it on its own, so von der Leyen is just
doing America's bidding with the tough talk – the whole barnyard of European political
elites needs to be cleaned out before there can be any hope of better relations, as they are
all committed Atlanticists.
If I were Shoigu, although I cannot fault his actual response, I would have said, "I see
nothing constructive will be accomplished here today, so I will leave you to it, for I have
drills to conduct and work to do. I'll see you next time".
There's nothing wrong in dealing from a position of strength so long as you are prepared
to be reasonable; it merely signifies that you do not have to accept any terms that are
offered. But when NATO speaks of 'dealing from a position of strength', it means 'you know
what will happen if your offer is not as expected'. In the NATO lexicon, there is no such
situation as both sides dealing from a position of strength.
Ukraine has huge problems because far right nationalists while hate corruption, do not control economics and oligarchs who
control it do not intent to share their profits with the population, who is on the edge of starvation.
Breaking economic ties with Russia helped to relegate Ukraine to semi-colonial status as without cooperation with Russian
industries and access to Russian market (which they know very well) many Ukrainian manufacturing industries are less
viable..
Ukraine was already converted into debt-slave, and it is extremely difficult to climb out of this hole without default.
At the same time it serves are powerful anti-Russian force in the region and as such will be semi-supported by both the USA
and EU. for example attacks on Ukrainian currency probably will be avoided.
This is a variant of " don't cry for me Argentina" situation.
Notable quotes:
"... Notably that while the west is gradually leaning toward dumping Ukraine and hoping Russia will solve the problem, the warning signs are there that Russia has no intention of bailing out an exhausted Ukraine, and that this time it is going to be allowed to fail all the way down. The west should be warned that nobody is riding to the rescue and pouring their resources into stabilizing Ukraine – if the west cannot do it, the alternative is collapse and draining emergency work to keep the population from starvation. Prosperity is an impossible dream now, and the people – I think – would be pretty happy to be back where they were before the glorious Maidan. ..."
"... Interestingly, something that was not touched upon in the 'Necessary' section was the elimination of the oligarchy in Kiev and other major cities. I will declare frankly that I have no idea how this might be achieved – as discussed before several times, the Ukrainian oligarchs control something in the order of 70% of Ukrainian GDP, and are not about to gift any of it back to the Ukrainian state. ..."
"... You'll know there's no more money in Ukraine when the oligarchs leave, and I see no sign of that so far, while it is evident they intend to be a big part of any future rebuilding. They've already successfully stolen most of the IMF money, and plainly think an even bigger payday is still in the offing. ..."
"... Eventually, if the USA is unsuccessful in forcing the outbreak of another world war, the west will get around to either asking Russia to help, or trying to dump Ukraine on Russia. ..."
"... Whatever happens, the dream of Ukrainian nationalists to forge a great and powerful ... nation of Ukraine is always going to remain that – a dream. They're happy enough at present scampering about in the ruins and glorying in their imagination of great power, but they are kings of the dungheap without any clue of nation-building. ..."
"... The few who both hated Russia and honestly aspired to a Great Ukraine – free of corruption and able to pay its way through judicious management of its undeniable resources and casting off the peasant mentality – have no influence, and operate at the pleasure of the power-brokers; they are allowed to dabble at anti-corruption until their probing becomes uncomfortable, and then they are discredited and fired, if not charged with the crimes they say they are investigating. ..."
That is indeed an interesting piece – generally speaking, we most enjoy writing with
which we agree, and I mostly agree with it and feel the ring of familiarity, because some of
it is what we have been saying here for a couple of years. Notably that while the west is
gradually leaning toward dumping Ukraine and hoping Russia will solve the problem, the
warning signs are there that Russia has no intention of bailing out an exhausted Ukraine, and
that this time it is going to be allowed to fail all the way down. The west should be warned
that nobody is riding to the rescue and pouring their resources into stabilizing Ukraine
– if the west cannot do it, the alternative is collapse and draining emergency work to
keep the population from starvation. Prosperity is an impossible dream now, and the people
– I think – would be pretty happy to be back where they were before the glorious
Maidan.
Interestingly, something that was not touched upon in the 'Necessary' section was the
elimination of the oligarchy in Kiev and other major cities. I will declare frankly that I
have no idea how this might be achieved – as discussed before several times, the
Ukrainian oligarchs control something in the order of 70% of Ukrainian GDP, and are not about
to gift any of it back to the Ukrainian state.
But for so long as Ukraine continues to elect one oligarch after another to the office of
President, the oligarch of the moment will be far more occupied with increasing his/her
personal wealth and power, and settling scores with rivals, than with governance and
accountability. At the same time, there is no use hoping the President will be a poor man or
woman, because they generally do not have the worldly education to grasp the problem and
envision solutions while being simultaneously beset from all sides by the oligarchy, seeking
to retain its power and influence.
You'll know there's no more money in Ukraine when the oligarchs leave, and I see no
sign of that so far, while it is evident they intend to be a big part of any future
rebuilding. They've already successfully stolen most of the IMF money, and plainly think an
even bigger payday is still in the offing.
The United States has largely forgotten Ukraine, as it was only ever a pretext for a
full-court press against Russia anyway, and it now has enough Russophobia sustainment in its
ditzy population to press forward without the need to invoke sympathy for Ukraine. Europe is
still quite interested in a resolution, but only because of its fear that it is going to get
stuck with the booby prize, and be made to assume responsibility for getting Ukraine on its
feet somehow, perhaps even absorbing it. Eventually, if the USA is unsuccessful in
forcing the outbreak of another world war, the west will get around to either asking Russia
to help, or trying to dump Ukraine on Russia.
Whatever happens, the dream of Ukrainian nationalists to forge a great and powerful
... nation of Ukraine is always going to remain that – a dream. They're happy enough at
present scampering about in the ruins and glorying in their imagination of great power, but
they are kings of the dungheap without any clue of nation-building.
The few who both hated Russia and honestly aspired to a Great Ukraine – free of
corruption and able to pay its way through judicious management of its undeniable resources
and casting off the peasant mentality – have no influence, and operate at the pleasure
of the power-brokers; they are allowed to dabble at anti-corruption until their probing
becomes uncomfortable, and then they are discredited and fired, if not charged with the
crimes they say they are investigating.
Well said. Presumably, the Donbass will pull away from Ukraine and vote to joint Russia and
Russia will approve for any number of reasons but certainly including humanitarian,
ethnic/cultural connections and military considerations. Other regions such as Odessa could
jump aboard as well.
There may be a mass exodus from what is left – the grifter to the West and those
seeking a better life to the east. The Nazis will remain behind and may serve some purpose
such as providing a pool of mercenaries for CIA projects.
I, for one, do not think the Donbass will be an overwhelming economic burden in the long
run. The population has shown resolve and resilience. Given leadership and material aid, they
can rebuild fairly quickly I think.
Well Canada has rather upset the apple cart, hasn't it? On the one hand, western moralizing
and sermonizing other states about what they should do used to be only restricted to mostly
enemy states, preferably much less rich ones, on the other hand values only mean something if
you actually are willing to pay a literal price in either money, blood or both.
The financial papers are saying that this will damage SA's the confidence of foreign
investors, precisely those SA is trying to attract so that it can start to diversify its
economy away from petroleum based products, but we have yet to see if this will have a
noticeable effect, rather than just a wish effect.
The US has said Sweet FA, along with the rest of the sermonizing weapon selling west, so
Canada has very little support from its allies. So far. Germany should be an obvious
supporter but if pissing of the Saudis makes it more dependent on Russia ergo there are
plenty of reasons that can be wheeled out to keep treading lightly.
It looks to me as just another sign of the existing order breaking down, whether or not
Canada back tracks or not. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
As for the so-called free and democratic media, well they only further discredit
themselves publicly.
Meanwhile, I just checked out the Canada headlines and this jumped out:
Global Affairs Canada would not say whether Canadian taxpayers are financing the sale, and
would not provide any other details about the arms deal
Few details are available about the proposed sale of weapons, as the Canadian
government says such information is commercially sensitive. It has declined to name the
company selling the guns or indicate how many rifles would be sent to Ukraine. However
Conservative MP James Bezan, who has been in contact with the Canadian company that has the
agreement to supply the rifles to Ukraine, confirmed the deal's likely timeline. He declined
to name the firm since the sale still has to be finalized.
Nicolas Moquin, a spokesman for the Canadian Joint Operations Command Headquarters,
said the Canadian military has been providing sniper and counter-sniper training to Ukraine's
security forces since September 2015. He said Canada is not looking at this time of providing
additional sniper training to coincide with the delivery of new weapons .
####
OR, is this just Canada selling sniper rifles that are not necessarily of Canadian
origin?
According the the video below with Canadian MP James Barazan, he says there are large
numbers of weapons such as assault rifles, sniper systems, mortar systems, counter battery
radar etc. sitting in warehouses in Jordan (& Toronto) that were supposed to go to
Kurdistan.
Yes,, the world order is falling apart. For some reason, this state of affairs reminds me of
the observation that married couples who are heading toward divorce are on that path not
because of a lack of communications but because they are now communicating for the first
time.
Ukraine is awash in small arms – they could give them out with a box of tea at the
supermarket as a promotion, and it would still take months to work through their supply. The
last thing they need is more rifles. On the other hand, new ones will probably fetch a good
price on e-Bay.
Oh, dear; Ukraine has more or less lost its case before the WTO, in which it wept that Russia's unfair imposition of an embargo
on its railway cars and rolling stock constituted a violation which caused a former $3.2 Billion in annual sales – more than it
realizes from transit fees for carrying Russian gas to Europe – to collapse to $150 Million. The WTO bought the Russian rationale
that Russian inspectors going to Ukraine to ensure the product conformed to Russian standards would be in fear of their lives.
But the WTO ruled that the security situation was such that Russian inspectors sent to check that Ukraine's exports complied
with Russian standards would have been risking their lives, and Russia was therefore justified in not sending them to Ukraine.
"The panel fully agreed with Russia's position and recognized that there was no systematic restriction of imports of Ukrainian
equipment by Russia," Russia's Ministry of Trade and Economy said in a statement.
The WTO did go on to say Russia could have carried out the inspections outside Ukraine, but therein lies a sandbag to the head
that Ukraine probably spotted already – if Russian inspectors found shoddy work or any other reason to refuse the offered goods,
to say nothing of the probability that no contracting position between the two countries even exists any more, then Ukraine would
be out the sale plus whatever costs it incurred to ship the goods outside Ukraine.
In the Polish capital of Warsaw a fortnight ago, Igor Kolomoisky met secretly with
Yulia Tymoshenko. The reason for the secrecy is the terms of exchange which they discussed.
These include Tymoshenko's agreement that if she is elected president in Kiev in eight
months' time with Kolomoisky's support, he will get relief from Ukrainian state pursuit of
billions of his dollars currently frozen on British court orders.
Kolomoisky wants relief from prosecution by the Ukrainian courts and the National Bank
of Ukraine (NBU) for theft, fraud and unjust enrichment of $1,911,877,385 from Privatbank,
which Kolomoisky lost control of in a state takeover in December 2016. For the story of the
looting of Privatbank, and the diversion of the International Monetary Fund's Emergency
Liquidity Assistance (ElA) loans to the NBU, and from there to Privatbank, read this archive
.
####
Anyone willing to place odds on Yulia stabbing Kolomostomy in the back once elected? I think
she will as the current environment affords her the opportunity to reform the Ukraine and
cement a positive image of her for prosperity. I think the EU/whatever would be willing to
back her all the way as the least worst alternative who would also offer the chance to get
out of the hole they've dug themselves with Russia. After all, if Yulia makes up with
Pootie-Poot, who to the west would meaningfully object? Maybe this would be the Ukraine
equivalent of what happened at the end of 1999 in Russia. At some point the cycle has to be
broken. Either this is even more revolution/revulsion/chaos or someone grabs the bullshit by
the horns.
Russia does not have too many options right now when it comes to Ukraine; and Yoolia might
well be the lesser of several evils. A plus is that Pootie-Poot has bedded
worked with Yulia successfully in the past.
Kolomostomy – I just shook my head in amazement. Kudos; I wish I had thought of that.
I'm betting Yooolia will just be Poroshenko with breasts. All right, then; Poroshenko with
woman breasts. Reforming Ukraine would be hard and thankless work, and so far as I am aware,
Yooolia is not into work of any kind. She is also an oligarch, like Poroshenko, with perhaps
an even more opaque accounting of her personal wealth – when she's driving around in a
fabulous luxury car, it was lent to her by a friend; when she's living in a luxurious house,
someone she knows let her stay there for free. Poor girl hasn't got a bean; just lots of rich
friends. Personally, I would submit that bodes ill for the Yooolia-will-fix-it hopefuls.
It's just a pity Ukraine can't get anything done unless either a billionaire or a Nazi is
in charge,
In a rare interview, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh talks about his
illustrious career and how he believes the official versions of some the biggest news stories
of our time just don't add up
Here's quite a good collection of references and commentary on the Skripal 'poisoning'. Every
time I read over one of these summaries – and I by no means read this one over in
detail, just skimmed it – some new incongruity jumps out that sailed right past me on
the initial run-through. In this instance, Nick Bailey. The Skripals were supposedly poisoned
by Novichok daubed on the doorknob of their front door, and Bailey was supposedly affected by
the same vector. Yet the Skripals lived it up for about four hours before they showed any
symptoms, while Bailey was affected almost immediately.
Curious thing also is that police officers were initially posted outside the front door
– there were quite a few photos of the two women police officers (one chubby, the other
not so chubby) standing near the driveway – for some time without being affected by any
fumes, until the doorknob story became prominent.
One of the more sinister aspects of the "poisoning" is that all major evidence – the
Zizzi restaurant table, the park bench, the pet animals that starved – has been or is
being destroyed by the British authorities. Even Dawn Sturgess was cremated without anything
in the press about whether her body had been autopsied. If someone blames somebody else for a
murder or some other serious crime, and then covers up or gets rid of important evidence,
what does such behaviour suggest?
Too true, blue. Although the police officers might have stood there until the clap of doom
and not been affected if the agent was present as a gel, and slathered on the doorknob. But
that story always sounded like a crock, because both of them likely would not have touched
the doorknob on the way out, probably only one of them, and the supposed Russian assassins
would not have known if it might have been Yulia. Good assassination plots, as we have been
told the Russians have practiced for decades, ensure that the target is taken out. They're
not particularly squeamish about collateral damage, but in this instance only Yulia might
have succumbed. But assuming it was a gel and it was on the doorknob, much of it might be
assumed to have been removed by the target on the way out, and still Bailey was overcome in
less than half the time of the Skripals, both of whom appear to have been simultaneously
afflicted around four hours after leaving the house.
It's kind of comical, the stubborn and progressive destruction of evidence by the British
authorities, the buying of Skripal's and Bailey's houses at taxpayers' expense, and so on
– it's as if after a brief blink of bewilderment that the official narrative is not
being accepted at face value, the British government is trying to get a do-over.
My God, what has Salisbury done to the Dark Lord? When will his fearful shadow be lifted from
this unhappy city? There has been an explosion in a 'military factory' (not sure what that
means) in Salisbury which has killed at least one person. The MSM has not yet announced the
Russian connection but Luke Harding/The Guardian/The Independent/the Foreign Office/the
entire US State Department/ are, no doubt, manufacturing one as we speak.
Maybe the Russian agents who poisoned the Skripals by smearing a non-lethal fatal nerve
agent on a door handle after pumping it through a car ventilation system after sneaking it
into Yulia's luggage and who then high-tailed it back to Moscow but not before decanting some
of it into a gift-wrapped bottle which they left in a local park where it could be recovered
in a pristine state after four months and used to poison a couple of dumpster-foragers, made
a hitherto unknown deviation from the Kremlin's master plan and hid the remaining nerve agent
in a factory along with a time-controlled detonator so all evidence of their evil doing was
destroyed.
Now the authorities will be telling people that Novichok is highly inflammable and children
should not be allowed to play with Novichok and matches or cigarette lighters.
The Russians engineered it to be that way – a fatal nerve agent that seldom kills,
persistent for months if wrapped in cellophane, explosive and flammable, eats dreams and
makes you lose your job.
The Iranian Airbus was also in a recognized air corridor used by civil aviation, and its IFF
showed it was both climbing and traveling at a speed which strongly suggested it was a civil
aircraft. The VINCENNES had positioned itself underneath an aviation corridor, so that
aircraft traveling in a recognized airlane on their legitimate business would appear to be
closing the cruiser. The search/acquisition radar on the F14 was the AN/AWG-9 – its
electronic signature is extremely distinctive and looks nothing like the search/nav radar on
the Airbus. It would be impossible to confuse the two. Sailors who claim they genuinely
confused the Airbus with an F14 should not be allowed inside an operations room ever again,
because it would be inexcusable incompetence.
Additionally, when the ship's weapon-control acquisition radar locked on to the target in
preparation for firing, it would have indicated the target was climbing and not descending
– its beam constantly 'paints' the target and registers any change in direction or
altitude, since it must guide a missile to it.
But there is no shortage of disastrous situations, often leading to loss of life, in which
the American military claims to have simply made an honest and really unavoidable
mistake.
Yes, it was epic incompetency combined the desire to put on a show followed by a coverup
reminiscent of official investigations of police murder of innocent civilians.
I forgot to mention a surprising claim in the documentary. It indicated that the captain
could have aborted the attack right up to the point of the missiles reaching the target. Do
control systems for anti-aircraft, anti-ship or ballistic missiles have such an abort option?
I was under the impression that once they were launched, there was no turning back. I suppose
if the missiles rely on ground guidance then they could be directed away from the target at
any time. but is this really an option?
Long-range anti-air missile systems like the Standard SM have a 'kill' function which
terminates the engagement (Command Destruct). But what it actually does is terminate
guidance, so that the missile no longer has a target reference. A missile whose engagement is
thus broken will continue to fly until it runs out of propellant, using its last-known target
position as a reference. If the engagement is terminated early, and the missile is not almost
at intercept, there's a good chance it will miss. Fired into a busy civil-air corridor,
though, there's also a chance it will blind-impact something else that was never an intended
target.
Like the Vietnam war as an honest mistake made by good well-meaning men. Right. The US has
not even progressed beyond the denial stage. The fall will be long and hard.
My Lai was the result of frustration in US troops in Vietnam. Basically the "manifest
destiny" of the USA means that it can never do any wrong. In spite of all the hate projection
on Russia and Russians, they do not have such a delusional mindset. In fact, they are
excessively attacked from both within and outside Russia about various historical events. We
see this with the MH17 hoax and the Iran Air 655 (where is the chorus of anti-US voices on
this atrocity?)
Holy shit. Great catch, this is the first I had ever heard about any of this. Works nicely as
a backgrounder also on the reliability of the Dutch government as an impartial investigator
of MH17.
Oh, the Dutch! Israel has a hold over them because of WW2. Their political elite based its
post-war national image on supposed widespread Dutch resistance to the German occupation
(hiding Jews, giving German soldiers wrong directions while being ever so polite, defiant
Queen Wilhelmina leading the government-in-exile). Soldaat van Oranje is the book and film
which puts this myth across so brilliantly.
In the 60s, the Dutch counterculture started to uncover the ugly truth. Prince Bernhard
was an I.G. Farben spy and a Nazi, 75% of Dutch jews perished (highest percentage in western
europe). In Amsterdam, jews were a commodity – when they ran out of money to PAY those
who hid them, they were SOLD to Dutch police collaborators and rounded up for
deportation.
It was always about money. The information in the article below started to emerge when I
was living in Holland. I didn't think anything could shock me, but this – and the real
story of Friedrich Weinreb – certainly did.
This shameful wartime history was a subject only for the Dutch to discuss among
themselves. To the outside world, they promoted Anne Frank, philosemitism, and the habit of
agreeing with every foreigner at his own level of knowledge.
Paul Verhoeven, who made the patriotic-myth film Soldaat van Oranje in 1977, told the tale
of this widespread collaboration, treachery, and end-of-war vindictive score-settling in the
more recent Zwartboek in 2006. Both films are well worth watching.
I'm speechless. Probably the same Thyssen family which is currently half of Thyssen-Krupp: I
seem to remember reading that Krupp was investigated for war crimes over Krupp Motor Works.
There is an excellent book written in the 60's about Krupp. As a matter of fact there are two
well known such books apparently, but I've only read William Manchester's "The Arms of Krupp"
which traces the family line back to the 17th century. It's definitely a product of its time,
both in terms of style and presentation, and in terms of perspective, but with that in mind
it does an excellent job of conveying the essence of the Krupp history, from its humble
beginnings, to the family's complicity with Hitler, all the way to the Krupp family's loss of
control of the firm in the late 60's, which the author curiously connects, at least
marginally, to a form of "private Ostpolitik" on part of the firm in looking to sell large
amounts of machinery to the DDR. Its a fine piece of narrative history.
Wow, confirms my impression that ALL of Western Europe was basically pro-Nazi and fit quite
well into the broader Reich.
Exceptions and honorable resistance coming in only onesies and twosies.
As far as I know, the only truly large scale grass roots resistance to the Nazis were in the
Soviet Union and Serbia. As for the rest of Europe, the "conquest" by Germany was little more
than an upper management shakeup at worst or, more typically, a friendly management takeover.
I am also surprised but not really (does that make sense)? The foundational value of Western
Europe is racism, class and divine rights of the elite. Nevertheless, it is shocking to learn
how those "values" are applied and how the truth is suppressed; least the peasants raise
their heads from their iPhones.
' During later stages of the flight test program, flutter testing showed that the wings
suffered oscillation under certain conditions. This difficulty was partly solved by reducing
the stiffness of some wing components. However, a particularly severe high-speed flutter
problem was solved only by inserting depleted uranium counterweights as ballast in the
outboard engine nacelles of the early 747s.[54] This measure caused anxiety when these
aircraft crashed, for example El Al Flight 1862 at Amsterdam in 1992 with 282 kilograms (622
lb) of uranium in the tailplane (horizontal stabilizer) '
So, all Boeing 747 jets contain some depleted uranium as ballast in their wings and the
engines in the wings, and in their tails. Gulp,
Can anyone imagine if a Russian civilian airliner had resorted to a similar solution? Flying
Chernobyls! Must be banned from Western airports!
About 4% of all 747s have crashed or otherwise suffered damage beyond repair. That is a
lot of depleted uranium. NATO used a great deal of DU in its attack on Serbia as well. Per
Wikipdia regarding health effects:
The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of concerns about potential
long-term health effects.[5][6] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and
numerous other systems can be affected by exposure to uranium, a toxic metal.[7] The
biological half-life (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the
amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.[8] The aerosol or spallation frangible
powder produced by impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially
contaminate wide areas around the impact sites, leading to possible inhalation by human
beings.[9]
A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence
is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to
DU."[10]
There is hysteria about lead in paint and in gasoline. But somehow uranium is not harmful.
Freaking clowns. If you are going to worry about lead, then you better start worrying about
other toxic heavy metals such as uranium.
Don't forget also that Amsterdam Airport Schiphol was also the place where the Underpants
bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane bound for Michigan back in December 2009.
The company in charge of airport security at AAS then was ICTS whose subsidiary Huntleigh
USA was responsible for airport security at Boston's Logan International Airport on 11
September 2001.
IIRC, the Underpants bomber did not have a valid passport and had other travel issues as
well. A US lawyer who happened to witness the brouhaha swore in an affidavit that the
authorities, nevertheless, allowed him to board the plane without a passport.
Having traveled through Schipol airport many times, I can say that the authorities give
the appearance of being very security conscious. For example, they almost always interview
every passenger on US bound flights. If you appear "nervous", the questioning intensifies. I
can not imagine them allowing anyone on the plane without a valid passport. Presumably, US
authorities were contacted to confirm the individual would be granted entry. So the security
failure (if that what is was) included the US. More likely, it was something else.
First there was the Shoe Bomber, after which the TSA acquired ever more powers, and people
had to start taking off their shoes at the airport.
Conspiracy theory: The Underpants Bomber was also an inside job. The plan was to stage a fake
terrorist attack, so that the TSA could force people to start taking their underpants
off.
This plan would have worked, but too many important people drew the line at taking off their
underpants.
Actually, what appeared right after the Underwear Bomber was the Rapiscan full-body scanner.
It did not work at all for its designed purpose, and was easy to fool; moreover, and despite
TSA's fervent promises that people's privacy would be respected, and it was not possible to
preserve body images after the person had passed through the scanner, those were lies.
Probably few were surprised to discover that, as lying has become expected behavior for
federal agencies, and all of them do it all the time. Cynicism is a growth industry.
Yup. Every new terror attack led to more infringements of personal liberties and
ever-increasing powers for the TSA and Federal Government. It's either (1) a series of
false-flag conspiracies; or, at best, (2) locking the barn door after the horse has already
escaped.
And that seems to be the theme with modern-day British criminal incidents which are blamed on
Russia – all the evidence is destroyed. Perhaps that's why the 'incredibly-toxic nerve
agent' vehicle was chosen; so that wholesale destruction of all the major evidence would not
seem so odd. And don't think it hasn't been noticed.
Consider the slapdash investigation also of MH17, in which Ukraine was allowed to get away
with shelling the wreckage for days – although there was no strategic value to the
crash site – and was still given a seat on the investigative board and unfettered
(probably unsupervised) access to the evidence, as well as a veto over the publication of any
findings. Graham Phillips documented the complete disinterest of the investigative body in
pieces of wreckage found in woods and other cover by area residents. Contrast that with the
shoulder-to-shoulder meticulous search of neighbouring woodlands in the Lockerbie bombing,
which resulted in the 'discovery' of a tiny fragment of circuit board, ostensibly from the
timing device, which fingered Libya as the culprit.
The FBI operative who identified the fragment as a piece of a circuit board which was
supplied only to Libya and the Stasi, the linchpin of the case against Megrahi, was later
revealed to be a fraud who had given false evidence in American murder trials and had little
or no scientific qualifications. The British and US governments have a demonstrated record as
fixers.
One rather material element in delusions about Russia, alike in my country as in yours, is that people still appear to have difficulty
realising that Putin is not a communist, and, where they can get this far, find it utterly impossible to make sense of what he actually
is.
Among the more extreme instances was provided by our Ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce, in the exchanges in April as the Western
powers were trying to cover up yet another 'false flag' chemical weapons attack. She explained: "In respect of Karl Marx, I think
he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting
Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory."
This problem might have been avoided had our then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, summoned his Eton and Oxford contemporary
Paul Robinson back from Ottawa, where he now teaches. Ironically, it was when Johnson was editing the 'Spectator' that, in January
2004, he published an article by Robinson, headlined 'Putin's might is White', which had a shaping influence on my view of contemporary
Russian realities.
Only later did I learn that, after leaving university, its author had served for five years in Army Intelligence, and, when he
chose to do a doctorate, opted to excavate some forgotten figures from Trotsky's 'dustbin of history', writing on the White Russian
Army in exile.
As a result, at a time when so many who had opted for 'relevant' subjects quite patently had no idea what was happening, Robinson
could see, clearly, that what goes into the 'dustbin' does not necessarily stay there: that Putin was, in essence, a grandchild of
the Rev olution who had come to believe that some of those who had opposed it had been completely justified. (As it were, Trotsky
should have been in the 'dustbin', not Denikin.)
Moreover, having described the new Russian President as a 'typical Soviet radish – red on the outside but white at the core',
Robinson went on to put into context the complexities of his relationship towards 'liberal' ideas:
'Probably the most fundamental tension in Russian politics is that between the concepts of gosudarstvennost' and its rival obshchestvennost'.
The nuances of the latter are difficult to translate, but the term refers to civil society and, roughly speaking, means "public opinion".
Liberal commentators regard the state in Russia with suspicion. At the start of the 20th century, they longed for the state to surrender
its power to "public opinion". They still do. But supporters of gosudatstvennosr view supporters of obshchestvennost' with equal
suspicion. They see them as the self-interested representatives of the chattering classes, who, if put into positions of power, will
immediately plunge Russia into a state of anarchy in which their beloved liberties will be of no use to them or anybody else. This,
the Whites argued, was what the liberals of the provisional government had done in 1917, and this, many now claim, is what free-market
democrats such as Yegor Gaidar did to Russia in the early 1990s.
What about the historical, by the ammount of millions, military budget Trump signed yesterday at that military base, destined
mainly to counter Russia and China?
Is he suffering of RDS too already?
How do you see it?
It includes an increase in military personel wages of 2.5%...this would translate into pensions as well, I guess, thus, added
to the tax cut, it would seem that for some people Trump is the hen of the golden eggs...
The Reagan/Thatcher revolution was a restoration of a new Victorian Gilded Age. The USA is a plutocracy with two ideologies
(globalism and nationalism) at war. Donald Trump represents the old national myths. Peter Strzok is a courtier of the Clinton
globalists. The little people, under stress from austerity, are reverting to their old myths and religions. American globalists
cannot face the reality of the defeat of Hillary Clinton. Instead they project themselves on to others. It is the evil Vladimir
Putin who is doing the dirty deeds. As with all scapegoats, the truth about Russia does not matter.
This is very scary. The weaponizing of sanctions and tariffs plus the possibility of the 17 year old Middle East Holy War spreading
into Turkey and involving NATO troops in Turkey, Syria and Iraq; make the ignition of Russia's 1,960 strategic nuclear weapons
a real possibility.
It is only under the shelter of a state strong enough to protect its subjects from crime or external assault, to create
and enforce laws to regulate commerce and industry, and to encourage the arts, education and other social benefits, that a
society can prosper, and that the conditions for individual liberty can ever hope to exist.'
This is the quintessential state delusion. History proves the exact opposite, nowhere better than the United States whose founding
was based on minimizing state power as much as possible consistent with there being a state. Clearly it was not enough... "Give
them an inch and they'll take a mile."
'In that story, America is placed at the vanguard of the great human march of progress. America is the grateful inheritor
of other people's gifts. It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role. America culminates
history. It advances a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The things Americans
do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.
'This historical story was America's true myth '
How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me. Truly delusional and divorced from any notion of reality. Nothing
but a propaganda piece by Brooks. A pure example of "America Delusion Syndrome."
re: "How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me."
Perhaps the current propaganda is analogous to that described by Auden in
"The Shield of Achilles" (
https://www.poets.org/poets... )
"... She looked over his shoulder
For vines and olive trees,
Marble well-governed cities
And ships upon untamed seas,
But there on the shining metal
His hands had put instead
An artificial wilderness
And a sky like lead.
A plain without a feature, bare and brown,
No blade of grass, no sign of neighborhood,
Nothing to eat and nowhere to sit down,
Yet, congregated on its blankness, stood
An unintelligible multitude,
A million eyes, a million boots in line,
Without expression, waiting for a sign.
Out of the air a voice without a face
Proved by statistics that some cause was just
In tones as dry and level as the place:
No one was cheered and nothing was discussed;
Column by column in a cloud of dust
They marched away enduring a belief
Whose logic brought them, somewhere else, to grief..."
At this rate many may come to grief due to the corruption of bloviating megaphones.
'Tis a pity.
Ishmael Zechariah
In 2015, Bill Browder published Red Notice – purportedly a true story about his
experience in Russia between 1996 and 2005. Upon closer scrutiny however, his story doesn't
add up and demonstrably fails to stand up in a court of law. Nonetheless, on the dubious
strength of that story, Browder has been able to lobby the U.S. Congress to pass the
Magnitsky Act in 2012 which needlessly damaged the relations between the U.S. and Russia.
Where he failed in courts of law, however, his campaign of relentless demonization of Russia
and of Vladimir Putin has been successful in the court of public opinion in the West. As
humanity finds itself on the precipice of yet another great war, what we need are bridges of
mutual understanding and constructive engagement, not demonization.
" and so Putin immediately issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered "
What an amazing consistency in supporting the Browder/Steele line "Putin did it." Which is
understandable, considering the efforts and investment made into the MSM memes. You made a
very strong impression that the presstituting MSM is your main source of information.
Here are some excerpts from the honest sources.
"Poisoned Russian spy was close to Christopher Steele consultant:"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/poisoned-russian-spy-close-steele-consultant-report-article-1.3862516
"Jonathan Winer was not only a point man for the Steele "dossier" at the State Department in
2016 (and Steele dossiers of yore), he was also a father of the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Yes,
longtime Senate staffer Winer is the "old friend" Browder credits with envisioning the
legislative strategy that culminated in passage of the law. (More recently, Winer is serving
as Browder's bulldog-lawyer -- story here.)
"Cardin knew there were problems with Browder's story about Magnitsky's death and yet brought
him into Congress to testify to secure the vote. That's suborning perjury:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-04/magnitsky-trio-pushes-war-russia-new-sanctions
"Litvinenko's circle also included Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Goldfarb, Vyacheslav
Zharko, and Akhmed Zakayev, most of whom have received asylum in the U.K. In the 1990s, Boris
Berezovsky worked with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and George Soros' International Science
Foundation which was headed by Alexander Goldfarb for almost ten years. He was also involved
in money laundering millions of dollars through the Bank of New York and the Republic
Bank of New York which was owned by Bill Browder's now deceased partner, Edmond
Safra:" https://jimmysllama.com/2018/05/07/11191/
– Is not interesting, how so many Browder's connections met an untimely death yet
Browder the Scoundrel is well supported and protected by the "deciders." -- See the fate of a
DOCUMENTARY about Browder, Magnitsky, and a bloody trail of the dead former employees of
Browder whom he used for his very profitable if criminal enterprise.
Alexander Perepelichny" was the key witness who could potentially destroy the scam with
highest political stakes on Magnitsky dossier. As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and
"I do not know" on any substantial inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very
interested in hearing Perepelichny. This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week
before the bill passed the US House: on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead
outside his mansion in London."
"... Why are they pushing a propaganda war which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know that there cannot ever be a real hot war? ..."
"... How will they prevent escalation if they themselves seem to slowly drink their own Kool-Aid and believe that Russia is "waging hybrid warfare" with them, and therefore that any military action against Russia counts as self-defense, moreover, that it'd be insane not to wage an actual war against Russia? ..."
Exactly. It's a bit frightening because I don't quite get what their endgame is here.
Maybe they truly believe they can decapitate Russia with very little risk or damage to
NATO countries, but from publicly available data it doesn't look like that.
Why are they pushing a propaganda war which awfully looks like psychological
preparation for a real hot war, when they must know that there cannot ever be a real hot
war?
How will they prevent escalation if they themselves seem to slowly drink their own
Kool-Aid and believe that Russia is "waging hybrid warfare" with them, and therefore that any
military action against Russia counts as self-defense, moreover, that it'd be insane not to
wage an actual war against Russia?
"... Russia's economy is weak. Its GDP did not make the world's top 10, yet its military, especially its nuclear power, has sustained its status as one of the most influential nations in the world. Russia and the US have serious geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, but Trump suddenly reversed the hardline US stance and showed a low-key response to Putin. That's probably because, as Trump said, Russia is a nuclear power. ..."
"... Yet Trump's respect toward Russia is worth mentioning. Trump is a man who values strength, and he attaches great importance to military strength, especially nuclear strength. ..."
"... China is different from Russia. China has a robust economy and has many tools at its disposal, which is an advantage. Yet China's relatively weak military, especially its nuclear power, which lags behind the US, is a major strategic sore point. ..."
"... Just by looking at the US' aggressive attitude in the South China Sea and the Taiwan question, we know that China's nuclear strength is "far from sufficient." Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage. We are concerned that maybe one day, Washington will turn this arrogance into military provocation, whereby China will face very grave challenges. ..."
Amid the lingering fury from the US media over US President Donald Trump's summit with
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the White House announced Thursday that Trump
invited Putin to visit Washington this fall. Trump's attitude has been firm on improving
US-Russia relations. Despite staunch opposition, it is quite likely that US-Russia
relations will halt its slide during Trump's presidency.
Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers
in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's
total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is
clearheaded.
Russia's economy is weak. Its GDP did not make the world's top 10, yet its military,
especially its nuclear power, has sustained its status as one of the most influential
nations in the world. Russia and the US have serious geopolitical conflicts in the Middle
East and Europe, but Trump suddenly reversed the hardline US stance and showed a low-key
response to Putin. That's probably because, as Trump said, Russia is a nuclear
power.
We know US-Russia relations cannot be improved overnight because it is difficult for the
two countries to make strategic compromises in Europe and the Middle East. Even if their
relations improve, other frictions may emerge, causing new rifts in bilateral ties.
Yet Trump's respect toward Russia is worth mentioning. Trump is a man who values
strength, and he attaches great importance to military strength, especially nuclear
strength.
The US has defined China as its strategic competitor and is exerting more pressure. The
trade war may be just the beginning. Tensions between the two nations may spread to other
areas. We believe that during this process, the White House will continue to evaluate,
including a look at China's nuclear arsenal.
China is different from Russia. China has a robust economy and has many tools at its
disposal, which is an advantage. Yet China's relatively weak military, especially its
nuclear power, which lags behind the US, is a major strategic sore point.
A popular view among Chinese strategists is that we need only a sufficient number of
nuclear weapons. Too many nuclear weapons cost more and may trigger outside alarm, leading
to strategic uncertainty. Those who hold this view believe China does not need to increase
its strategic nuclear weapons and should instead focus on modernizing its nuclear weapons
to secure the country's capability for a second nuclear strike. We believe this view is a
serious misinterpretation of the major countries' nuclear situation.
China is no small country that needs only a few nuclear weapons to scare off an
intimidator at a critical moment. China has grown into a global influence, facing greater
risks and pressure than smaller countries do. We must reconsider what constitutes
"sufficient" in terms of nuclear weapons.
China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role
of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate
China militarily. Once major countries are engaged in military conflicts, each side must
evaluate the determination of the other side to see the conflict through. Nuclear power is
the pillar of that determination. One of the major reasons that the US used a
"salami-slicing" method to push for NATO's eastward expansion but refused to engage in open
conflict in Ukraine and Syria with Russia is probably because it was concerned about what
Moscow might do with its huge nuclear arsenal.
Just by looking at the US' aggressive attitude in the South China Sea and the Taiwan
question, we know that China's nuclear strength is "far from sufficient." Part of the US'
strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage. We are concerned that
maybe one day, Washington will turn this arrogance into military provocation, whereby China
will face very grave challenges.
China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power. Advanced missiles
such as the Dongfeng-41 should materialize as soon as possible. Not only should we possess
a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know that China is
determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.
Of course, we do not believe nuclear power development should override all the other
work or its development should come at the expense of other major developmental interests.
But this work must be made a top priority. We must recognize the urgent need for China to
strengthen its nuclear prowess.
If a nuclear war starts, it is only logical for the initial combatants to target ALL
powers at once, as this may be their last chance to reduce their neighbors' ability to loot
and conquer after the war. So expect Europe & China to be hit. China will in turn target
Japan, India, Korea, etc. The US do not trust Canada or Mexico, so these may well become
targets too. Pakistan and Israel may want to make their move at this point. Pretty soon it
would become clear that no major industrial or population center should be spared. So within
a couple of hours, the world's entire nuclear stockpile would be launched.
After these events, the country with the most extensive tunnel system will emerge as the
new world leader.
A very busy week indeed. It looks like the world is dividing into two alliances: those who
will follow the dictates on Iran and Russian sanctions and those who won't. We're in the
prelude to a long winter of a cold war or a very hot one, depending on how the USA chooses to
enforce those sanctions. Effectively at this point the upcoming sanctions would serve as the
equivalent of a blockade. A blockade is an act of war. A much more lively August than any of
us expected. The devil is never idle.
Miserable fat scheming twats like Karl Rove have nothing to look forward to on vacation
and so delight in poisoning everyone else's. There's a whole warren of similar rats in the
Trump administration and over at Langley which is why I mention Rove. While he's not in the
current administration, he's a very visceral representation of what the world is up against
until we put the neocons and PNACers out of business for good.
PS. I see nhs continues to post tracking links instead of direct links @7. b, I'd really
appreciate it (and the rest of the tech savvy audience here would too) if you'd ban tracking
links or more positively insist on direct links. Technically speaking all of nhs's posts
should be held as he's a serial offender. You can either clean his links for him (sounds like
as much fun as fixing his toilet for free) or just delete the comments which contain URL
shorteners (tracking links). The latter would make encourage him to clean up his act fast.
You'd be surprised how quickly inconsiderate, spying, spamming types like nhs would learn how
to post direct links.
" I don't quite get what their endgame is here .Why are they pushing a propaganda war
which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know
that there cannot ever be a real hot war?"
Most probably, because they are calculating that under various forms of psychological and
economic pressure Russia will crumble from within and surrender, just like in the times of
Gorbachev-Yeltsin, without having to fight a real, risk-filled war. Surrender and subjugation
without firing a shot – THAT'S their imagined endgame. "Why wouldn't what worked within
living memory, a mere 30 years ago, work again now in updated form?", they think –
especially since the Russia of today is in a comparatively much weaker position overall than
the USSR of back then and the Russian rulers and society are not really too much different
psychologically from what they were back then, and are even mostly COMPOSED OF THE SAME
INDIVIDUALS? Is it really surprising that they think that way, given the continued existence
and thriving inside Russia of a powerful, openly seditious Fifth Column which is not
seriously combatted by either the Putin government or the stupid mass of the Russian populace
(who stand to lose the most, suffer terribly, and be reduced to colonized virtual serfs or
exterminated if the Fifth Columnists and their foreign masters succeed in crashing
Russia)?
Of course, IF this is a miscalculation (and I'm not sure that it is, given the current
weak, appeasing mentality of the Russian government and population), and the psychopathic
Western ruling elites don't manage to get a hold of their oversized lunatic egos and rein in
their arrogant hubristic belligerence – well, then the whole situation could devolve
pretty quick into a massive, WW I/WW II/Iraq/Serbia combination-type hot war scenario.
Except, this time, with the real probability of stepwise escalation from conventional
hostilities to Thermonuclear Holocaust.
Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive
power of American sanctions on Russia?
Russia may have struck a heavy blow already, when she dumped her holdings of U.S.
treasuries. The relatively small amount ($100 to $200 billion) may not have been significant,
but as a signal to the rest of the world it may have been loud. The new sanctions may be an
attempt to punish Russia for that. They won't work, of course, but the noise they generate
may help to obscure the import of Russia's recent action.
What I don't understand is why the US thinks Russia and China will continue to sanction North
Korea. It seems like the US is handing out straight razors to everybody and asking them to
slit each others throats. Except for Erdogan, they all seem to be saying, "Sure why not?"
Maybe they are simply accustomed to taking orders.
"... "DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+ contacts with dossier author Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016. He owes the American public the full truth." ..."
"... So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians, likely -- I believe was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counter-intelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now polluted nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. It is absolutely amazing, ..."
"... Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show that Ohr, Steele, and Simpson communicated throughout 2016, as Steele and Simpson were being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump. ..."
"... why the most central of figures in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, British spy for hire Christopher Steele, is not sitting before Congress, testifying to the real election collusion between the UK, the Obama White House, the FBI and the DOJ. ..."
"DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+
contacts with dossier author Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016. He owes the American
public the full truth."
DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+
contacts with dossier author, Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016.
Lawmakers believe former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is a central figure to
finding out how the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid PR
smear firm Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele to fuel a conspiracy of Trump campaign
collusion with Russians at the top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA)
said Sunday to Fox News' Maria Bartiromo
So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians,
likely -- I believe was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign,
fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a
counter-intelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now polluted nearly
every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. It is
absolutely amazing,
According to Breitbart
, during the 2016 election, Ohr served as associate deputy attorney general, and as an
assistant to former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein. His office was
four doors down from Rosenstein on the fourth floor. He was also dual-hatted as the
director of the DOJ's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.
Ohr's contacts with Steele, an ex-British spy, are
said to date back more than a decade. Steele is a former FBI informant who had helped the
FBI prosecute corruption by FIFA officials. But it is Ohr and Steele's communications in 2016
that lawmakers are most interested in.
Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show that Ohr, Steele, and
Simpson communicated throughout 2016, as Steele and Simpson were being paid by the Clinton
campaign and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump.
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine the role Bruce
Ohr played in Hillary Clinton's Deep State attack against the Presidency of Donald Trump, and
why the most central of figures in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, British spy for hire
Christopher Steele, is not sitting before Congress, testifying to the real election collusion
between the UK, the Obama White House, the FBI and the DOJ.
Looks like the aim of US sanctions is to ratchet the hostility up with Russia to the level of
a full blown cold war. Ukraine can be a victim.
Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, you'll get bogged down in Ukraine. You'll face tough choices (sanctions will get North Korea-style quickly, and even Chinese sympathy will get questionable), like should you spend your scarce resources on modern weaponry or a large security force to keep Ukraine pacified? ..."
"... Very few people in Russia would want Ukraine now. The consensus is: "good riddance". In Ukraine, on the other hand, there are people who want Russia to invade. Some are waiting for someone else to liberate them from Nazis (they apparently are not familiar with Protestant wisdom that God helps those who help themselves), some pray for a pretext to invite NATO/US (as if anyone is willing to die for them). ..."
We'll need an anti-sanctions law regardless of whether or not we are going to invade.
Well, I'd say it's a precondition to invading Ukraine. If you're incapable of
making such a simple law, you're sure as hell incapable of invading Ukraine. And you do need
the law if you want to avoid the sanctions creating the perverse incentives inside Russia, like
the biggest banks not having branches in the Crimea. Decoupling from the US dollar is no help,
since US sanctions are extraterritorial, if you didn't notice, so they affect euro or even
Chinese yuan denominated transactions, too.
Eastern Europeans will never mobilise. What would mass mobilisation even look like in a
country like Hungary? Instead, they'll petition USA to station more of its troops in Eastern
Europe. A lot more, like hundreds of thousands more.
Within living memory, Hungary had armed forces of 150,000 troops and 1,500 main
battle tanks (admittedly, the majority were somewhat obsolete), with hundreds of fighter and
light bomber jets (MiG-21s and Su-22s etc.), and we were the slackers in the Eastern Bloc, not
spending on defense as much as other neighbors of us. Increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP
is what's the plan. If you invaded and occupied the whole of Ukraine, it could easily go up to
4-5%.
Of course, the Americans might come in numbers, too. But you're delusional here:
Doing so will impose costs on the USA. Actually, this is one of the few ways Russia could
impose tangible costs on USA: by stoking tensions in Eastern Europe.
We have no military industry to speak of. Most of our neighbors do have some, but
even they are nowhere near self-sufficiency. You can guess who we'll buy our weapons from.
Poland recently offered to pay for an American base on its soil. So it won't be much of a cost
for the US, it might actually be quite beneficial.
Meanwhile, you'll get bogged down in Ukraine. You'll face tough choices (sanctions will
get North Korea-style quickly, and even Chinese sympathy will get questionable), like should
you spend your scarce resources on modern weaponry or a large security force to keep Ukraine
pacified?
Mass deportations is the best part about occupying the Ukraine!
Stalin's USSR at the height of its power only deported much smaller populations.
You'd need a lot of people to achieve that. But let's assume you'll manage to do that. It will,
of course, create a huge backlash against Russia: popular opinion will get united against
Russians. (Defense spending quickly up to 5% of GDP or higher.) The Ukrainians in our countries
will of course enter the workforce and join anti-Russian ragtag militias to control the border.
Instead they would have to contend with an insurgency in Eastern Poland
So the people ethnically cleansed from their homes will rise up against NATO in
support of Russia. This is a seriously dumb idea.
Very few people in Russia would want Ukraine now. The consensus is: "good riddance". In
Ukraine, on the other hand, there are people who want Russia to invade. Some are waiting for
someone else to liberate them from Nazis (they apparently are not familiar with Protestant
wisdom that God helps those who help themselves), some pray for a pretext to invite NATO/US
(as if anyone is willing to die for them).
This reminds me of an old Russian joke.
An old hag sits on the bench and screams: "Help! They are raping me!"
Another one passes by and asks: "Have you gone completely mad?"
The first one answers: "Everyone is entitled to a pleasant dream!"
Don't worry about my IQ woes – they are non-existent. I am a stable genius –
just like Donald Trump. Your IQ issues are – on the other hand – very easy to
fix. All you have to do is admit that you are Russian and you immediately gain 20-30 IQ
points. Of course, this will come at the expense of Russia, but then again. everything you've
ever done in your history came at the expense of Russia. All the Russians ever wanted was to
have a brotherly nation in Ukraine. They have a brother all right, unfortunately that brother
has a Down syndrome.
Any Russian ruler who tries to return Crimea will be overthrown in no time. As Russia
gradually disengages from the US-dominated financial system, the costs will go down. Russia
has already created its own payment system similar to that of Visa and Mastercard, as well as
its own money transfer system similar to SWIFT. On the other hand, if Russia fails to
disengage from dollar-dominated system, the losses would be much greater than Crimea. It
might even turn into a shithole, like Ukraine.
Insurance is more often a scam than not: Lehman Brothers enjoyed pretty high ratings until
their crash. What's more, banks were insured against the risks of sub-prime mortgages they
held. Remember what happened in 2008?
As to the future, nobody has the crystal ball. Can you tell how much a Big Mac will cost
in the US five or ten years from now? $4? $40? $400? $4,000? Your guess is as good as mine.
Ponzi schemes have a habit of crashing and nobody worked out a way of predicting when exactly
the crash will occur.
This might be in the cards. The US sanctions actually squeezed Russian comprador (5th
column) oligarchs, who were always subservient to the West, sent their families there, and
are siphoning off their money offshore, more than anything. If Putin uses this to expropriate
their stolen riches, which he might do (98% of Russian population would be cheering; they'd
cheer even more if Putin hangs those bastards, but that's unlikely), these sanctions would be
yet another example of the US shooting itself in the foot. The US is getting pretty good at
that lately, always screaming that it hurts afterwards.
"... So will a good Christian like Mike Pompeo reconcile these obvious falsehoods, self deception. With every letter, he will be denying the very God he professes to believe in. ..."
"... Trump and his administration are the reveal of the true nature of modern American political Christianity. This is what it always was ..."
"... But The People are not exactly conscientious objector on the issue of Yemen and the crimes committed in our name either. The Republic might rot from the head, but the rot has certainly spread far and wide. ..."
A senior general urged Saudi officials to conduct a thorough investigation into an
airstrike that killed at least 40 children in Yemen, the Pentagon said Monday, an indication
of U.S. concern about allied nations' air operations against Houthi militants.
The general's request actually shows how little concern the U.S. has for how the Saudi
coalition conducts its war effort. If the U.S. were concerned with how the war was being
fought, our officials wouldn't be asking the perpetrators of atrocities to investigate their
own crimes. It is pointless to urge the Saudis to conduct an investigation into their own war
crime when we already know that they will find that they did nothing wrong. As the
Post article notes later on, the coalition's investigations predictably excuse their
actions:
According to Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director for Human Rights Watch, Saudi
investigators had cleared coalition military officials of legal responsibility in virtually
all investigations the JIAT had conducted.
The pattern of Saudi coalition conduct over the last three years is clear. Their forces
commit numerous documented war crimes, and then when they "investigate" those crimes they
determine that their forces are guilty of nothing. It would have been laughable to ask the
Saudis to investigate themselves back in 2015, and to do the same over three years later is
inexcusable. It is an invitation to whitewashing heinous, illegal acts. The U.S. will not
honestly call out the coalition members for their crimes against Yemeni civilians because our
government is
deeply complicit in those crimes, and so we are treated to this pantomime farce where we
send officers to call for investigations whose results have been predetermined even before the
crimes were committed. The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone
ordered to participate in it.
There needs to be an independent, international inquiry into war crimes committed by all
sides in Yemen. All parties to the conflict are assuredly guilty of war crimes, and all parties
should be held accountable for what they have done to Yemen's civilians. As long as the U.S.
enables Saudi coalition crimes and then shields them from scrutiny, our government is
implicated in both the crime and the cover-up. Congress could put a stop to this if they
were willing to do their jobs and assume their proper responsibilities, but for more than three
years they have shirked their duties and acquiesced in a despicable and indefensible policy in
Yemen.
"The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone ordered to
participate in it."
For all that they're doing it at the order of even more disgusting civilians, this has got
a be a low point in the history of the American military. The word "Yemen" on a resume or CV
will make military people stink for the rest of their lives. Like "My Lai" or "Dishonorable
Discharge".
We are getting a preview of the letters Mike Pompeo will be signing off on to Congress.
So will a good Christian like Mike Pompeo reconcile these obvious falsehoods, self
deception. With every letter, he will be denying the very God he professes to believe
in.
"The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone ordered to participate
in it."
Conduct unbecoming.
The higher the rank of the officers involving themselves in this – in following
unconstitutional orders to participate in an illegal campaign of aggressive war and
collective punishment – the worse it gets. It would be a heroic act for a private
– or even the officer piloting a refueling tanker – to speak out against this, a
general has much less of a claim to honor and acquiescence both.
If The People really supported those who serve, they would rally to every conscientious
objector – even the misguided ones – because anybody who has the honor and
integrity to question orders is preferable to those that pay no heed to the meaning of their
oath.
But The People are not exactly conscientious objector on the issue of Yemen and the
crimes committed in our name either. The Republic might rot from the head, but the rot has
certainly spread far and wide.
"... Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks, but I'm sure it's all part of the plan. ..."
"... Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel because uh chaos and destabilization. ..."
. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal
of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well
as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion
dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less
is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel
which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.
Oh right, who can forget the cabal of Jews controlling the US government and military at
the time of the Iraq invasion, such as President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, CIA director George Tenet, National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice Every.Single.Time, am I right, folks?
Oh wait, they aren't Jewish? Well, I blame the Jews away. Just look at uh Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Woflowitz and
journalist Bill Kristol. That sounds like an extremely powerful cabal easily capable of
commanding such trivial figures as the President, CIA director, Secretary of State, et
cetera, to do their bidding.
Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to
pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack
on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the
Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks,
but I'm sure it's all part of the plan.
Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and
created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and
likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel
because uh chaos and destabilization.
And if you doubt that neocons totally control the US government, just look at how we're at
war with Iran! Well we're not technically at war yet, a decade after neoconservatives
began promoting the war and President Obama did somehow manage to sign a nuclear deal with
Iran that infuriated his neocon and Israeli puppetmasters but I'm sure that President Trump,
famously beloved by Jews and neocons everywhere, will soon go to war with Iran.
' I'm not entirely sure why you keep hanging on to this tired and false narrative that
US politicians are some sort of stooges and puppets of Israel '
Maybe because they are stooges and puppets? In extreme cases, they even boast of it. When
Romney was running for president, he promised he would check with Israel on any action we
took in the Middle East. When Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was promoting civil war
in Syria, she explained that this was necessary because Israel wished it.
It goes on, and on. If someone is considering a run for Congress, he gets a nice little
packet from AIPAC. Among other things, he's asked to write an essay expressing his feelings
about Israel.
If the essay isn't satisfactory, AIPAC backs his opponent.
Not surprisingly, when Netanyahu -- the premier of a tiny state on the other side of the
planet -- spoke to Congress he was interrupted with standing ovations seventeen times. The
display put me in mind of the sort of frenzied adulation Communist delegates used to display
towards Stalin.
and the motives, of course, would be similar, even if actual death isn't in prospect. For
most in Congress, displease Israel, and your political career just ended.
"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had
considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with
Washington."
It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack.
I think it needs to be emphasized that it's not merely a matter of practical politics.
Israel is evil -- she brings misery to millions, actual happiness to almost no one, and
engages in behavior with no defensible moral foundation at all. She has attacked every
single one of her neighbors, compulsively seeks out further conflict to paper over the
shortcomings in her own national identity, and treats her Palestinian subjects with a
morality about like that of a nasty little boy pulling the wings off a fly.
Arguably, others are as bad. However, unlike the others, Israel could not have come into
being without our support, and could not continue to exist today without our continued moral,
economic, diplomatic, and military support. If we pulled the plug, Israel would cease to
exist as a Jewish supremacist state within -- at most -- a decade.
We are, in fact, responsible for Israel, and hence responsible for Israel's crimes. Other
people's teenaged sons may well be out there stealing cars and raping girls. This happens to
be our son doing it. We're responsible.
We pursue many policies I regard as futile, short-sighted, deluded, or self-destructive.
My personal list would include 'come one come all' immigration, global warming denial,
maintaining a massive military establishment, condoning 'Black Lives Matter,' and probably
some other things.
No doubt the reader has his own list. However, that's not the point. The point is that
essentially, these policies are merely stupid rather than actually evil. It's not evil
to think we should just let whoever wants come into the US. It's dumb -- but it isn't
evil. In fact, I'll willingly credit people who vote for 'sanctuary cities' et al with the
most laudable sentiments. I merely question their intelligence.
Israel is different. Israel is evil, and hence our support for it is as well. It is the
most fundamentally wrong act we are engaged in.
There is a moral dimension to life. There is a distinction between striving to do good --
however unsuccessfully -- and willingly participating in evil.
"A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of
individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part
by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason
but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House
without any objection from a controlled media."
Kind of begs the question, why are we giving any aid to a first-world country with a GDP
growth rate in the 3% to 4% rate for years (even while we were stuck below 2%) and an
unemployment rate below 4%?
The Israeli economy is in better shape than the US economy; they should be giving us
aid.
"Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad,
an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham
but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them."
Yes, it is truly amazing what our "Best & Brightest" will do to stay on-side.
Following Mr. Giraldi's earlier post regarding the gubernatorial run of Israeli puppet Ron
DeSantis and the Big Sugar connections of Adam Putnam, it would seem a Floridian's least
worst choice is Bob White.
Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself
1st part: Absolutely, indubitably correct.
2nd part: ¿Qué? Why do people say/write this? Under what corrupt
arrangement does an oh, so obvious outlaw have any such right?
Consider: A gang of out-of-towners turns up at a block of flats, breaks the doors down and
occupies the building, killing some erstwhile owner/occupiers and ejecting most of the rest
on the way in, thereafter whooping it up big, and ignoring [obviously too feeble] orders to
RoR+R*3 [= Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation.] Since when can such
outlaws dictate anything, thumb their noses at the Law?
Property, especially here land, is alienable – but this does not mean
' subject to seizure by aliens .'
Kindly consider: "A fair exchange is no robbery." A fair exchange means willing
seller, interested buyer, and a freely and fairly agreed price. No such thing exists
vis-à-vis the forcible colonisation of Palestine. Some proof may be seen
here [my
bolding]:
By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and
villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20,500
km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine
Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership.[5]
5. Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land
and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.
Especially in reference to the illegitimate entity which terms itself Israel, wiki is not
reliable, being, like the US Congress, Israeli-occupied territory. So it is noteworthy that
they write "in control of" as opposed to 'own.' They can't ever own it due to not having
purchased it, and Palestinians may not surrender it, due to the UDHR which specifies
*inalienable* rights:
Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with
others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Also, see the Washington Consensus:
10.Legal security for property rights.
Further, there is UNSC242: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, plus
only just law may earn respect, and/or be respected. A law dispossessing erstwhile legal
owner/occupiers is an utter travesty.
Me; comment: Its illegitimacy is all so howlingly obvious!
Fazit: Apart from the ~6% of 'pre-Herzl Palestine' which 'invading by stealth' alien,
mostly European Jews managed to purchase, the illegitimate entity does not own nor can they
ever own the land/property they squat upon, which still belongs to the erstwhile
owner/occupiers, specifically the 'native' pre-Nakba Palestinians [now including heirs &
successors]. Then, the illegitimate entity does not declare borders for two reasons 1) any
such declaration would be [probably successfully] challenged and 2) the illegitimate entity
expresses the desire to expand to 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.' Q: Just how ghastly is
that? A: Could hardly be worse.
Closing the loop: How can land-thieves have any 'right to defend' such improperly
alienated land/property? It doesn't compute! rgds
Thank you, Mr. Giraldi, for another forceful rebuke of Zionist criminality and US
culpability.
The supremacist kosher state is a cancer on America. Just survey the wreckage. Count the
bodies. Who benefits from this?
The Zionist project is a plague on humanity. It entertains no compromise. It will stop at
virtually nothing. Examine the blood-soaked damage from Soviet Russia to Germany to Palestine
and beyond. It moves Washington around via remote control.
The situation has become very grave. Speech deemed 'anti-Semitic' is rapidly being
criminalized worldwide.
Right wing political expression (that Jews don't like) on Twitter, Facebook and the web is
being de-platformed for speech infractions that involve 'hate'. But it's only 'hate' of a
certain stripe.
After all, hatred is ubiquitous in America. It cuts in every direction. So why is the
focus so intense on just one spectrum of hatred?
Might it have something to do with the political preferences of those in power?
Oh maybe.
Principles be damned. Whose ox is being gored?
With that in mind, consider this: who might actually be the biggest hater of
all?–and killer? (Hint: it's certainly not the powerless Alt-right 'deplorables'.)
Might it instead be the world's foremost victims?
After all, incendiary speech–even 'hate speech'–does not kill. It takes bombs,
drones, tanks and missiles to accomplish that.
So where's the uproar over routine sorties which needlessly dispense death and
destruction?
It's gone missing.
Incredibly, it is rough speech and acute political criticism–not failed, horrific
wars–that are being criminalized. Pro-Zionist 'wars of choice' still get a pass in our
corporate board rooms, TV studios, news rooms, and in most of Official Washington.
This entrenched distortion allows neocons and their underlings to jawbone and plot their
next preemptive war. The Big Squeeze is on. Beware Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and
Iran. Zionism is an 'unshakable' Washington value. So get ready.
How distant wars advance the interests of average Americans remains a mystery.
Despite this puzzle, America's MSM offers little resistance and no straightforward
criticism of Zio-Washington's ceaseless war efforts on behalf of a certain 'democratic ally'.
In similar fashion, the Fourth Estate has also been compromised.
It's worth remembering that, according to the UN Charter, a state-sponsored 'First Strike'
against another sovereign state is the most serious war crime. This elementary moral precept
however matters not–at least not when Israel is pulling the strings. Quiet, children.
Listen. Obey.
What we have here is a pattern of vast serial criminality.
Zio-Washington has become Israel's war vessel. We regular folk are just along for the
ride.
So don't forget to cheer for the good guys!
Incredibly, US-enabled, Israeli ruthlessness has gotten even worse under 'America First'
Trump. After all, Trump needlessly tore up Obama's hard-fought peace deal with Iran.
Why would Trump make such a move? (As a candidate, he was far less hawkish).
Our weakened and despised President needs desperately to please America's foremost lobby.
Trump cannot govern without their support. This peculiar situation however requires
additional blood-letting on behalf of the Zionist state. Foreign wars that benefit Israel are
the unwritten price that the goyim leadership in America must pay. Sorry folks!
(Are you listening, Tehran?)
Jewish power corrupts. Overwhelming Jewish power corrupts in overwhelming fashion.
"... Trump in fact was not the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against China. ..."
"... So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that. ..."
"... despite whatever happened to the U.S., China would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic sectors to foreign investment. ..."
"... for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income, wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor. ..."
"... first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall economy, by various measurements. ..."
"... And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal. ..."
"... let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global order that the Trump administration in the U.S. ..."
"... The Trump administration of this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans' current political system. ..."
"... So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable. ..."
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.
The Financial Times chief economic columnist Martin Wolf has called Trump's trade wars with
Europe and Canada, but obviously the big target is China, he's called this a war on the liberal
world order. Well, what does this mean for China? China's strategy, the distinct road to
socialism which seems to take a course through various forms of state hypercapitalism. What
does this mean for China? The Chinese strategy was developed in what they thought would be a
liberal world order. Now it may not be that at all.
Now joining us to discuss what the trade war means for China, and to have a broader
conversation on just what is the Chinese model of state capitalism is Minqi Li, who now joins
us from Utah. Minqi is the professor, is a professor of economics at the University of Utah.
He's the author of The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy, and the
editor of Red China website. Thanks for joining us again, Minqi.
MINQI LI: Thank you, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So I don't think anyone, including the Chinese, was expecting President Trump to
be president Trump. But once he was elected, it was pretty clear that Trump and Bannon and the
various cabal around Trump, the plan was twofold. One, regime change in Iran, which also has
consequences for China. And trade war with China. It was declared that they were going to take
on China and change in a fundamental way the economic relationship with China and the United
States. And aimed, to a large extent, trying to deal with the rise of China as an equal, or
becoming equal, economy, and perhaps someday in the not-too-distant future an equal global
power, certainly as seen through the eyes of not just Trumpians in Washington, but much of the
Washington political and economic elites.
So what does this mean for China's strategy now? Xi Jinping is now the leader of the party,
leader of the government, put at a level virtually equal to Mao Tse-tung. But his plan for
development of the Chinese economy did not, I don't think, factor in a serious trade war with
the United States.
MINQI LI: OK. As you said, Trump was not expected. Which meant that Trump in fact was not
the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with
respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these
new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not
the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the
American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the
majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against
China.
Now, on the Chinese part, and we know that China has been on these parts, there was
capitalist development, and moreover it has been based on export-led economic growth model and
with exploitation of cheap labor. So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends
on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the
model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that.
And so you have, indeed there are serious trade conflicts between China and U.S. that will,
of course, undermine China's economic model. And so far China has responded to these new
threats of trade war by promising that China, despite whatever happened to the U.S., China
would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial
liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic
sectors to foreign investment.
Now, with respect to the trade itself, at the moment the U.S. has imposed tariffs on, 25
percent tariffs on the worth of $34 billion of Chinese goods. And then Trump has threatened to
impose new tariffs on the additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. But this amount at
the moment is still a small part of China's economy, about 3 percent of the Chinese GDP. So the
impact at the moment is limited, but certainly has created a lot of uncertainty for the global
and the Chinese business community.
PAUL JAY: So given that this trade war could, one, get a lot bigger and a lot more serious,
and/or even if they kind of patch it up for now, there's a lot of forces within the United
States, both for economic and geopolitical reasons. Economic being the discussion about China
taking American intellectual property rights, becoming the new tech sector hub of the world,
even overpassing the American tech sector, which then has geopolitical implications; especially
when it comes to the military. If China becomes more advanced the United States in artificial
intelligence as applied to the military, that starts to, at least in American geopolitical
eyes, threaten American hegemony around the world.
There are a lot of reasons building up, and it's certainly not new, and it's not just Trump.
For various ways, the Americans want to restrain China. Does this start to make the Chinese
think that they need to speed up the process of becoming more dependent on their own domestic
market and less interested in exporting cheap labor? But for that to happen Chinese wages have
to go up a lot more significantly, which butts into the interests of the Chinese billionaire
class.
MINQI LI: I think you are right. And so for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic
consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income,
wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the
Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in
transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor.
PAUL JAY: You know, there's some sections of the left in various parts of the world that do
see the Chinese model as a more rational version of capitalism, and do see this because they've
maintained the control of the Chinese Communist Party over the politics, and over economic
planning, that do see this idea that this is somehow leading China towards a kind of socialism.
If nothing else, a more rational planned kind of capitalism. Is that, is there truth to
this?
MINQI LI: Well, first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic
sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall
economy, by various measurements.
And then regarding the rationality of China's economic model, you might put it this way: The
Chinese capitalists might be more rational than the American capitalists in the sense that they
still use most of their profits for investment, instead of just financial speculation. So that
might be rational from the capitalist perspective. But on the other hand, regarding the
exploitation of workers- and the Chinese workers still have to work under sweatshop conditions-
and regarding the damage to the environment, the Chinese model is not rational at all.
PAUL JAY: My understanding of people that think this model works better, at least, than some
of the other capitalist models is that there's a need to go through this phase of Chinese
workers, yes, working in sweatshop conditions, and yes, wages relatively low. But overall, the
Chinese economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and China's position in the world is more and
more powerful. And this creates the situation, as more wealth accumulates, China is better
positioned to address some of the critical issues facing China and the world. And then, as bad
as pollution is, and such, China does appear to be out front in terms of developing green
technologies, solar, sustainable technology.
MINQI LI: OK. Now, Chinese economy has indeed been growing rapidly. It used to grow like
double-digit growth rate before 2010. But now China's growth rate has slowed down just under 7
percent in recent years, according to the official statistics. And moreover, a significant part
of China's growth these days derives rom the real estate sector development. And so there has
been this discussion about this growing housing market bubble. And it used to be that this
housing price inflation was limited to a few big cities. But for the first half of 2018,
according to the latest data, the national average housing price has grown by 11 percent
compared to the same period last year. And that translates into a pace of doubling every six
years.
And so that has generated lots of social resentment. And so not only the working class these
days are priced out of the housing market. Moreover, even the middle class is increasingly
priced out of the housing market. So that is the major concern. And in the long run, I think
that China's current model of accumulation will also face the challenge of growing social
conflicts. Worker protests. As well as resources constrained and environmental damage. And
regarding the issue of China's investment in renewable energy, it is true. China is the largest
investor in renewable energy development, in the solar panels. And although China is of all the
largest investor in about everything.
And so China is still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, accounting for
almost 30 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions in the world every year. And then
China's own oil production in decline, but China's oil consumption is still rising. So as a
result, China has become the world's largest oil importer. That could make the Chinese economy
vulnerable to the next major oil price shock.
PAUL JAY: And how seriously is climate change science taken in China? If one takes the
science seriously, one sees the need for urgent transformation to green technology. An urgent
reduction of carbon emission. Not gradual, not incremental, but urgent. Did the Chinese- I
mean, it's not, it's so not taken seriously in the United States that a climate denier can get
elected president. But did the Chinese take this more seriously? Because you don't get the
same, any sense of urgency about their policy, either.
MINQI LI: Well, yeah. So like many other governments, the Chinese government also pays lip
service to the obligation of climate stabilization. But unfortunately, with respect to policy,
with respect to mainstream media, it's not taken very seriously within China. And so although
China's carbon dioxide emissions actually stabilized somewhat over the past few years, but is
starting to grow again in 2017, and I expect it will continue to grow in the coming year.
PAUL JAY: I mean, I can understand why, for example, Russia is not in any hurry to buy into
climate change science. Its whole economy depends on oil. Canada also mostly pays lip service
because the Alberta tar sands is so important to the Canadian economy. Shale oil is so
important to the American economy, as well as the American oil companies own oil under the
ground all over the world. But China is not an oil country. You know, they're not dependent on
oil income. You'd think it'd be in China's interest to be far more aggressive, not only in
terms of how good it looks to the world that China would be the real leader in mitigating,
reducing, eliminating the use of carbon-based fuels, but still they're not. I mean, not at the
rate scientists say needs to be done.
MINQI LI: Not at all. Although China does not depend on all on oil for income, but China
depends on coal a lot. And the coal is still something like 60 percent of China's overall
energy consumption. And so it's still very important for China's energy.
PAUL JAY: What- Minqi, where does the coal mostly come from? Don't they import a lot of that
coal?
MINQI LI: Mostly from China itself. Even though, you know, China is the world's largest coal
producer, on top of that China is either the largest or the second-largest coal importer in the
world market as well. And then on top of that, China is also consuming an increasing amount of
oil and natural gas, especially natural gas. And so although natural gas is not as polluting as
coal, it's still polluting. And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest
importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously
the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal.
PAUL JAY: The Chinese party, just to get back to the trade war issue and to end up with, the
idea of this Chinese nation standing up, Chinese sovereignty, Chinese nationalism, it's a
powerful theme within this new Chinese discourse. I'm not saying Chinese nationalism is new,
but it's got a whole new burst of energy. How does China, if necessary to reach some kind of
compromise with the United States on the trade war, how does China do that without looking like
it's backing down to Trump?
MINQI LI: Well, yes, difficult task for the Chinese party to balance. What they have been
right now is that on the one hand they promise to the domestic audience they are not going to
make concessions towards the U.S., while in fact they are probably making concessions. And then
on the other hand the outside world, and they make announcement that they will not change from
the reform and openness policy, which in practice means that they will not change from the
neoliberal direction of China's development, and they will continue down the path towards
financial liberalization. And so that is what they are trying to balance right now.
PAUL JAY: I said finally, but this is finally. Do the Americans have a case? Does the Trump
argument have a legitimate case that the Chinese, on the one hand, want a liberal world order
in terms of trade, and open markets, and such? On the other hand are not following intellectual
property law, property rights and law, the way other advanced capitalist countries supposedly
do. Is there something to that case?
MINQI LI: Well, you know, let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led
by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global
order that the Trump administration in the U.S. - but I don't want to make justifications
for the neoliberal global order. But let's put it this way: The Trump administration of
this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social
conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans'
current political system.
PAUL JAY: So the crisis- you know, when you look at the American side and the Chinese side,
including the deep debt bomb people talk about in China, there really is no sorting out of this
crisis.
MINQI LI: So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable.
PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks for joining us, Minqi. I hope we can pick this up again
soon.
MINQI LI: OK. Thank you.
PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
"... "Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on The Apprentice, now got fired for the last time. She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok," ..."
"... "People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard really bad things. Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work." ..."
"... "The Apprentice" ..."
"... "No, I don't think he's fit." ..."
"... "He's being puppeted, and that's very dangerous for this nation," ..."
"... "Omarosa? Omarosa what's going on? I just saw on the news that you're thinking about leaving? What happened?" ..."
"... "You know they run a big operation, but I didn't know it. I didn't know that. I don't love you leaving at all." ..."
"... "Unhinged: An Insider Account of the Trump White House." ..."
Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice, now got fired for the last time.
She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok. People
in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but
heard....
...really bad things. Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work.
When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems. I told
him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me - until
she got fired!
While I know it's "not presidential" to take on a lowlife like Omarosa, and while I would
rather not be doing so, this is a modern day form of communication and I know the Fake News
Media will be working overtime to make even Wacky Omarosa look legitimate as possible.
Sorry!
The tweet comes hours after Newman, who starred in Trump's reality television series
"The Apprentice" before joining the White House, told NBC's "Today" show that
Trump was a puppet who was unfit to hold the nation's highest office.
When asked by Today host Savannah Guthrie if she thought Trump had the mental faculties
needed to be president, Newman answered: "No, I don't think he's fit." She added that
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly – who allegedly fired her without Trump's knowledge
– was "running" the White House while Trump remained clueless about daily
operations. "He's being puppeted, and that's very dangerous for this nation," Newman
said.
"John Kelly is running this White House, and Donald Trump has no clue what's going on.
He's being puppeted, and that's very dangerous for this nation." - @OMAROSApic.twitter.com/tYfDkMF19y
"Omarosa? Omarosa what's going on? I just saw on the news that you're thinking about
leaving? What happened?" Trump says in the recording, which Newman claims was made a day
after she lost her job at the White House in December 2017.
After Newman tells the president that Kelly had fired her, Trump insists that nobody ever
told him about it, adding: "You know they run a big operation, but I didn't know it. I
didn't know that. I don't love you leaving at all."
Her appearance on the morning program is part of a press tour for her new book,
"Unhinged: An Insider Account of the Trump White House." In it, Newman accuses Trump
of regularly dropping N-bombs during tapings of the "The Apprentice." She also claims
she was offered hush money in exchange for her silence about her tenure at the White House.
When asked over the weekend by a report if he felt betrayed by Newman, Trump shot back:
"Lowlife. She's a lowlife."
Moss also told the Guardian that Manigault Newman's use of a recording device presented
counterintelligence risks. "All it takes is one foreign agency hacking [the recording device],
and setting it to passive record mode," said Moss. The result would mean all conversations, not
just those Manigault Newman chose to record, would be "accessible to foreign entities".
This concern was shared by Kayyem. "There might be the perception, particularly by our
enemies, that the entire White House might be compromised, and that's kind of scary," she said,
adding: "The audience isn't just us and Omarosa and Trump. It's the Chinese and the
Russians."
Is recording in the Situation Room a crime?
Moss said, however, that just because the conversation occurred in the Situation Room, which
is actually a secured series of connected rooms, there is "no real obvious criminal liability".
All staffers entering the area must lock away their cell phones and other insecure electronic
devices. But he noted the violation would likely be enough to deny Manigault Newman a security
clearance if she ever wishes to work for the federal government in the future.
What has
the White House said?
"The very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the White House Situation
Room shows a blatant disregard for our national security," said White House press secretary
Sarah Sanders. She added: "Then to brag about it on national television further proves the lack
of character and integrity of this disgruntled former White House employee."
Has anybody in comments noted how far we have swung from absence of actual PROOF Russia did
the Skripal "poisonings" (or even Litvenenko for that matter?!) to what seems like complete
acceptance of "guilt," even as major international bodies (OPCW, etc., even Porton Down) have
not been able to tie Russia/Putin to these alleged acts of terror or isolate the "novichoks"
genre of nerve agent ? The Red Queen triumphs.
Does mere accusation now stand for "truth" in this inmates-running-the-asylum charade USA
is putting on? If the "big lie" (Lenin, BTW not Goebbels, originally) works this easily, we
are indeed down the chute & over the brink. Orwell is spinning in his grave (gnashing his
teeth).
"... Therefore, we have to deal with facts in the matter. Among the facts, I'd like to point out to the behavior of the investigating party, i.e. the British authorities. "We have proof but won't show them to you, because they are secret" attitude; bypassing normal investigative and judicial channels; unreasonable demands towards Russia they knew full well won't be met and total refusal to cooperate on realistic terms – we saw it for the first time in the Litvinenko affaire. ..."
All I was pointing out was that there were many reasons why Litvinenko was a target
for unfriendly Russian actions
I am pretty sure Litvinenko wasn't particularly loved in Russia: he was a traitor, after
all, and, judging by his actions, a pretty miserable human being. However, building a case on
motive alone is not possible, if for no other reason than because a motive is by definition
subjective. You could analyze until your face turns blue how Putin felt about Litvinenko's
accusations but you'd never come to any firm conclusion, for only Putin can possibly know
that.
Therefore, we have to deal with facts in the matter. Among the facts, I'd like to
point out to the behavior of the investigating party, i.e. the British authorities. "We have
proof but won't show them to you, because they are secret" attitude; bypassing normal
investigative and judicial channels; unreasonable demands towards Russia they knew full well
won't be met and total refusal to cooperate on realistic terms – we saw it for the
first time in the Litvinenko affaire.
The same patters was repeated exactly in the Skripal case. This tells you who is the
"highly likely" culprit, doesn't it? These two scenarios are so much alike, the have the same
author – not necessarily the same person, but definitely the same office.
let the US give itself back to the Indians, and then ask Israel to act the same way
Give the US back to the amerindians! Give Aus back to the abos! This does not work; it's
called 'moral relativism' and/or the 'tu quoque' [appeal to hypocrisy] fallacy.
Then ask Israel to act err, hello? Israel has been 'asked,' over 100 times by some
counts, to 'get legal' under UN resolutions. Israel is an outlaw.
Kindly consider the I/J/Z-plex's 10 steps to utter, criminal ignominy:
Herzl; coveting, expropriation (1897+)
Balfour; aid Zs, no consult Ps
Jabotinsky; colonise by force
Ben-Gurion: "we are the attackers and the Arabs own the land" [points 1 - 4 all
pre-WW2]
UNGA181: "an area shall be evacuated" (invalid + no UNSC action = not law)
Meir; $US50mio for arms + Plan Dalet&Co = premeditated, murdering to steal
aggression
When immigrants (=aliens) attack natives, it's *not* civil war but Nuremberg-class
crime
Z-terrorism; down to today; alien invaders' highest-tech vs. besieged & blockaded,
basically unarmed natives
US-support incl. UNSC vetoes; also down to 'current moment'
Z-hasbarah = mostly lies, designed and deployed to deceive
More: Post-WW2, Nuremberg trials, hanging perpetrators for murdering invasions for
Lebensraum predate King David Hotel bombing, Plan Dalet with outrages like the Deir
Yassin massacre, etc.. Similar outrages continue to be perpetrated by the illegitimate
entity, into 'the current moment.'
Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories,
apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a)
restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in
active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt.
Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all
residents in the 'illegitimate entity,' say.
Also post WW2, we got the post-colonial era; the illegitimate entity fulfils the
'premeditated supreme international crime' criteria. RoR+R*3 NOW! QED
PS Showing 'support' for criminals adopts part guilt for those criminals' crimes via the
accessory process; why would anyone in their 'right' = correct mind do that?
If a nuclear device is "lit off" in an American or European city, it will have Israel's
fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as
well as sabotaging the Palestinian "peace process" that the world wants it to take seriously.
In fact, if a nuclear device is "lit off" anywhere in the world, it will have come from
Israel's secret nuclear "stockpile".
The "power outage" in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical
"sleight of hand", as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the "power
outage" without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli
companies that possesses a "special exemption" granted by the U S government that frees it
from customs inspections. Just maybe another one of Israel's nukes was just being
pre-positioned or nuclear triggers (tritium) were being renewed, getting ready for "the big
one". As most Americans are tired of all of the foreign wars being fought for Israel's
benefit, another "incident" on American soil would be enough to galvanize the American
public, once again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another war for Israel's benefit.
Israel's "samson option" is a real threat to "light one off" in a European or American city,
if Israel's interests are not taken seriously.
Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already
distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them
are not in Israel, proper. No delivery systems are needed as Israel's nukes are already "in
place". Look for another "false flag" operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria.
You can bet that some Iranian or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.
Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about total
INSANITY; the so-called "Samson Option" is it.
As an aside, American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has
not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International
Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel
does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". This
prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents of a foreign
government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American
Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of
American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks"
infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship
must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said
foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of
American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed
to serve in any American governmental capacity.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians
slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel just
who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the American people and the
United States they should renounce their United States citizenship and be deported to
Israel
Giraldi is here-unlike in most of his regularly anti-Semitic texts- right about one crucial
thing: American Gentile cow-towing to (real or imagined) Jewish power in the US, as
illustrated by absurd Baron Cohen's episode.
However, I don't blame most of US Jews for that. Jewish ethnocentrists are to be suspect,
sure, but the main question for US gentile politicians & public figures remains: why are
you such suckers, anyway?
Between Jessica at #23, and Anon at #45 lay two paramount pieces of instruction which Phil
Giraldi ought to heed.
Ordinary Jews are no more required to register their objections over AIPAC's actions than
are Christians over the actions of their top leaders including the POTUS, domestic MIC
lobbies, the Gun Lobby and the Oil lobby; no more that is, beyond what each citizen expresses
through her vote. Individuals may choose; to go beyond, into political activism; yet
choice is the operative notion.
And no, Geokat, Power isn't listening to Phil over the sound of crickets for the simple
reason that Power does not read the UR, couldn't care less if they did, as the Review quite
rapidly degenerates to the station of an unrelenting hate rag frequented by dubious IQ
cultists, antisemites and White Nationalism apologists.
"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had
considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with
Washington."
And according to Jimmy Carter Israeli intelligence had advance information of the suicide
attack on the US barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 243 US servicemen (one of whom was a
member of my family). The Israelis decided to not inform US intelligence in the hope that a
major attack on US personnel would precipitate a commitment of US troops and arms into the
region. So much for our Israeli "ally".
You are, of course, correct that the US committed either genocide or near-genocide
(depending on your definition of the term) against Native Americans. However, NOW, in the
21st century, any Native American who is a US citizen is free to buy property in any part of
America and live where he chooses. Native Americans are no longer confined to reservations.
While poverty is a fact of life for many Native Americans, some tribes have profited
substantially from gambling. In Florida, Seminoles may receive upward of 40,000 a year (each
man, woman, and child) as their share of the gambling revenues. They can certainly afford to
buy property just about anywhere.
(Note that I am not denying that much discrimination and inequality still persist and that
most reservations with gambling offer very little to tribal members.)
In Israel, however, Palestinians cannot return to their home towns and buy property. They
are not free to live where they choose. Many are still confined to refugee camps. Housing
discrimination continues to persist for Israeli Arabs. Yes, the High Court ruled it illegal,
but few remedies are in place, which means the practice continues largely unabated.
If you want to use historical analogies, I believe you should use them in full.
Cohen's performance is instructive. A man shows up in Israeli uniform, claims to be a
terrorism expert or even a Mossad agent, and he gains access to powerful Americans who are
willing to do anything he says.
It is very telling about the human material on the right in America. Complete morons. Now
think about it. It was a prank, right? But I can imagine that real negotiations with Israelis
are very similar and produce similar positive outcomes for Israelis. Israelis play Americans
anyway they want on all levels of federal and local administrations. They have the same
attitude towards Americans as Jack Abramoff had towards his counterparts at Indian
reservations. Why shouldn't they? It works.
he called his Indian clients "troglodytes" and "morons" and "monkeys," "the stupidest
idiots in the land." In one particularly damning e-mail he counseled Scanlon, "The key
thing to remember with all these clients is that they are annoying, but that the
annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind of money and part with it so
quickly . So, we have to put up with this stuff."
At best American are annoying losers who part with their money quickly.
Mr. Giraldi, why do you bother with your articles? You still have illusions that you can
educate the monkeys?
It smacks of supremacism, doesn't it? It means the US must favor Zionist occupiers in West
Bank over Palestinians, the very people who are being occupied.
It means the US must favor Israel, a nation that stole uranium from US and has 300 nukes,
over Iran, a nation that passed all inspections and has no nukes.
This special relationship is a form of worship. It is never discussed rationally
WHY Israel is so crucial to us. Instead, politicians and pundits gush about it with fanatical
devotion, as if it's a sacred truth. Anyone who questions it even slightly is marginalized or
destroyed. Some might Giraldi has been too strident, but even mild criticism of Israel or
Zionism can get you banned from media or politics.
I find it odd that Jews always remind us that Old America was 'racist' because it favored
Europeans over non-whites, especially in immigration and foreign policy. After all, the US
often sided with European imperialists over non-white subjects of colonialism.
In New America, there is supposed to no Special Treatment for any group, but Jews and
Israel get it all the time. In asylum(Save Soviet Jews), in immigration, in college
admission, in foreign policy -- not just in supporting Israel at every turn but in waging
Wars for Israel and hating on any nation hated by Jews, esp Russia, Iran, and Syria.
An excellent blogger about Russia distills Putin's Sochi speech into 10 simple points A longer version of this article originally
appeared at the ClubOrlov
blog .
Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago,
and, chances are, those who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance.
Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like
the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since
Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech of March 5, 1946.
In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows:
politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly
for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations,
in which the actual deals were hammered out.
Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed,
and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over
the heads of elite clans and political leaders.
Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles . But Russia is prepared for serious
conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests
of each side.
All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins . There are no longer any international security guarantees
at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.
The builders of the New World Order have failed , having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any
sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.
Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating
and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.
Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding "empire of chaos ," and
has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already
vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.
Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image , but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their
image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure
to reap a whirlwind.
Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today
Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable , is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia
does not war -- nor does she fear it.
Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World
Order -- until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give
themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard
for her interests , will be taught the true meaning of pain .
In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing,
but on the will of the people.
To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:
10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war . This new world order must of necessity
include the United States -- but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international
agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.
To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is
ready for this; is the world?
I agree with your analysis. In addition, President Putin does not want to ruin the US
economy as doing so could have catastrophic ripple effects across the globe. What he does
want is to neuter the US government so it cannot so easily continue to make war, which
indirectly will weaken the Israeli state to the same.
Those people who have their monies in sound, diversified investment houses (ie:
Schwab, Canada's TD Bank) will weather the financial storms but houses such as Glodman's
and all the other speculators will most likely lose everything while bankrupting most of
the US government itself.
If it goes far enough and and the US government under the current set of Republican
loons decide to shut down Social Security and Medicare under such stresses, it will most
likely be game over for the government at that point allowing the UN to come in a reorder
the mess the US has made of itself; hopefully under Russian directives...
That the 'storm' is coming, needs no elaboration, because this spending spree the US
has indulged in, can, on any REAL planet, simply not go on indefinitely, ...
...and Russia isn't the only country, divesting themselves of this highly toxic brew
of the US' 'reserve currency', other countries are doing it too, namely China.
If the grapevine is to be given any credence, Japan is ALSO trying, with ever greater
desperation, to divest themselves from the US dollar, but because their economy is so
much tighter strung to the US', this diversification isn't going to happen without some
major 'pains', ...
The ones, who are going to bear the brunt of the US financially collapse, ...like it
happened during the GFC, are the Europeans, Africans and South Americans, who's economies
aren't endowed with either such resilience, ...like the Russian economy, or with such
size, ...like the Chinese economy.
Sounds like they're preparing for the possibility that this will one more bit of ammo
that the US will use against Russia. If you recall, they've made noises about it in the
past. Putin's trying to cover against all possible infringements of Russian freedom and
business by doing this. It's a smart idea to get the companies using the alternative to
SWIFT before it becomes necessary. It is also good news that Russian companies and
civilians are not specifying dollars for their loans. Smart thinking!
Yes, the Russians took the lemons of the sanctions and made lemonade - re-creating
their exports by diversifying into agriculture, industrial and technological equipment,
meat, dairy and other items. As for tourism, they are rated very high with St. Petersburg
being high on the list of 'want to visit' cities. The World Cup brought the truth out to
fans of how great, friendly and safe the country is. I'm sure they'll survive whatever
the US throws at them with elan.
And they need to be. I don't see the US softening their attitude anytime soon. No
matter who wins the midterms, the loser will blame their loss on Russian meddling, so
this will continue on - we've got at least 2 more years of the shit, possibly 4 after
that, if Trump runs and wins again. I myself am tired of all this - it will only be the
loss of the dollar as world currency that ends this and that's started happening already
and will be speeding up as more sanctions and tariffs come into play worldwide.
"... Moscow. July 27. INTERFAX.RU - Russia is not giving up the dollar, because at the
moment it is the universal reserve currency to which there are no full-fledged
alternatives, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Russia is not abandoning the dollar, the dollar is the universal reserve currency.
The Euro could more or less claim that status, but not fully. Therefore, we are perfectly
aware what the dollar represents today," he said at a press conference on the results of
the BRICS summit in South Africa, answering the question on reduction of investments of
the Russian Federation in US Treasury bonds.
"As for the reserve currencies in general, regional reserve currencies already emerge.
In a sense, this is the role that the Russian ruble plays in relation to the CIS or
EurAsEC countries. But in general, any national currency is strong and good if it is
backed by an equally strong and good economy. We must proceed from these fundamental
facts", said the President.
...
... "
Russia wont drop a dollar, do drop a dollar means surrender to China...Putin wont
allow China to progress over Russia, Chinese economy dropping with the speed of light
anyway...
In reply to Dennis, I think he is right on all counts, but, in the end, the U.S.
national debt coupled with ten times the "unfunded liabilities" is going to completely
tank the dollar, and nothing short of Americans demanding our government beg to be
allowed in the now dozen or more "real, gold capitalized banks" of the world, and being
accepted only because we do have some gold, and it would be security, and at the same
time, the U.S. returning to "capitalism", not a form of trade, but natural law in the
realm of "value added trade", something socialists have had to learn the hard way, and in
teaching the lesson, our own considered themselves 'above that issue', never allowing
themselves to dream of what could, would, and has happened, the actual taking up of this
natural law, and re-securing world trade out of being manipulable by the power brokers,
bankers and central banks, and once again, answering to the singular stable value that
has served humanity for millennia.
There is a way, and reason for "allowing America" to join, we've taxed the whole of the
trading world with inflation since 48, we've reduced the dollar from 22.50 per ounce to
35.00 between 33 and 48, and from that to floating around 2000, depending on our
government's manipulations on commodities markets, and oil in particular, and the world
would be better off if it could recoup some or all of the pillage my government has done,
outside the country.
As to "buying gold while it is down, I've bought much silver, for security, at 22.00 an
ounce, later at 19.xx per, and recently, at 14.xx per, as nations sell off metals to
provide liquidity in their markets. The metals have real value, and we can only guess the
probable future value of the paper, so securing one's place on a continuous, ongoing pace
means one will get better value one week, and perhaps lesser value the next, but
regardless, all its value is secure, in a way paper never can be.
In the mid-19th century, a cattle rancher with history and reputation of honesty by long
practice, could scribble a note on the back of a shingle, a check, buying cattle, and the
person taking the shingle in exchange for a herd, could take the shingle to the town
bank, and get gold in the amount denoted on the rancher's signature on his, scrap wood
"check".
Gold and silver "certificates" were issued to make money more easily carried, but they
acclimated people to the idea paper can hold real value. The people, we, humans, forget,
all the value is in the words put on the paper, and trust in the Person upon whose
signature that value is secured by. Informal, on scrap paper, scribbled, we never forget
it merely represents a pile of gold, and we don't let just anyone trade a scrap of
shingle for a herd of cows, only those we know by experience, we, personally, can trust.
We can never trust fancy printed paper, special, illegal to make, except the one who
makes it for money, and we should know by the kind of paper, the fancy special ink, and
the "flourishes", it was never intended to represent money, but to replace it on its
face, without having to carry the real value, which then can be kept, stolen, when paper
is lawful to own, and gold is not.
Satan didn't tell Eve "you won't die, God lied to you", he merely asked, "surely you
won't die?", implying God must love her too much to fulfill His word. The lie was all in
Eve's mind, Satan merely gave her opportunity to lie to herself, and our monopoly money
system is exactly the same kind, and form of enticement to lie, that puts the onus of the
lie upon ourselves, in accepting pretend money.
All great lies are made by those desirous of the power, or wisdom, wealth, ease, but
don't wish to fulfill God's promise, "you will earn your daily bread by the sweat of your
brow", but know so many who will fall for deceit in hopes of getting something more than
they earned. Those who doggedly tie their lives, their honor, and their fortunes to God,
and their faith, won't fall for the game, and are the exact enemies of the evil, because
they prove the truth and the lie in their everyday work.
America has walked a long dark way down that broad and wide path, and we are right close
to the point of no return. I don't know which side of that point we're on, time will
tell, but I pray we are short, and can still be saved if we choose to turn to right.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro ,NC, USA
Those who are looking for a swift collapse of the dollar will probably be mistaken.
Instead a whole series of events is gradually eroding its world power. These events
include the rise of China as the world supremo of trade, the increasing isolationism of
the US in world trade and diplomacy, and the need for US to keep increasing its Fed rate
which in turn makes its debt servicing more unsustainable
Russia pays the [huge] cost of remaining a nation, a civilization and a state ~Vladimir
Putin.
Putin Slams US: "The Biggest Mistake Russia Ever Made Was To Trust You"
This is a clear attempt top abuse the dominant position of the USA in the world. For Russian
this is powerful blow in the torso, Will it be knockdown remains to be seen. Also as a weaker
party Russia can's afford a powerful counterstrike.
Notable quotes:
"... "Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas" ..."
"Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth,
hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the
one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans
of Washington and its chihuahuas"Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey 14 hours
ago | 2,909
85 More sanctions
from the USA using the Skripal affair as an excuse without a shred of evidence, based on hype,
hysteria and hearsay. Back-door economic warfare.
Surprise, surprise. The USA invokes a law from the 1990s claiming that it has to impose
sanctions when a country crosses a chemical or biological line, in this case an invisible one
with no proof, no law case, no due legal process, just an allegation from wonderful British
intelligence that the Kremlin was involved in the Skripal case. Proof? None actually...none at
all. Just a vague blanket statement along the lines of "They have done it before and they have
said they will take out traitors and in the absence of any plausible alternative, they must be
guilty". For Washington, after months of vacillating, stating the obvious that it is very
complicated to apportion the blame when nobody knows which novichok was used, where it was
produced and in the total absence of any trail linking it to the Kremlin, we get the idea that
we are looking yet again at the wonderful British intelligence of the type that Colin Powell
used to justify the USA's illegal and murderous act of butchery against Iraq. The type of
intelligence which resembles a decade-old doctoral thesis copied and pasted from the net and
sexed up by Downing Street.
And here they are again, the dynamic duo. Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of
truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to
derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil
hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas.
Drawing the time line at the beginning, let us analyze what is happening and let us see the
movie developing from a distance. The political system in vogue at present is the corporatist
model controlled by the $inister $ix $isters which control the policies of Washington and its
chihuahuas, namely the BARFFS (Banking, Arms, eneRgy, Finance, Food, Pharma/DrugS Lobbies). The
BARFFS live off resources and as history has shown us when they have none themselves, they
invade countries and steal them. Ask Africa, the victim of a silent Holocaust which claimed
seventy million lives.
Russia for them is kosher when it is ruled by something that bends over when told to and
allows foreigners to steal the country's resources. Russia for them is not kosher when someone
like Putin comes along, slams his fist on the table and says loud and clear that Russian
resources are for Russians, managed by Russians. What the BARFFS want is to see Russia divided
up into, say, one hundred micro-states each one with a BARFFS-friendly government allowing
foreigners to syphon off the vast resources of this country.
The game starts with promises made to the then-USSR about friendly relations, about NATO not
encroaching eastwards, about a new world order based on partnership. It then quickly morphs out
of control with the help of the media, using buzz-words and expressions such as "collapse of
the Soviet Union" (absolute nonsense, it did not collapse, it transformed from the Union to the
Commonwealth as per the terms of the Third Soviet Constitution, without consulting the people,
or has everyone forgotten that?). There then ensued acts of provocation in the Balkans, and
then in Russia itself (Chechnya), then on Russia's frontiers.
Before Georgia in 2008 we had a spectacular example of war crimes and an illegal invasion of
Iraq to test the waters, where military hardware was deployed against civilian structures,
where fields of cereals were strafed by NATO aircraft to starve families, where Depleted
Uranium was deployed leaving swathes of territory poisonous; beforte this we had the illegal
interference in the Republic of Serbia, backing terrorists (Ushtria Çlirimtare ë
Kosovës, UÇK or KLA) and the illegal act of kidnapping and subsequent
manslaughter/murder of Slobodan Milosevich, who died in custody while being held illegally and
without being found guilty of any of the crimes leveled against him.
With Georgia we had another act of provocation in which Georgian forces attacked Russian
peacekeepers in South Ossetia and were building up to do the same in Abkhazia, territories
which under the Soviet Constitution had necessarily to have status referendums on which way the
people wanted to go and into which Republic they should integrate. Georgia refused to hold
these referendums.
And since Georgia we had Libya, a shocking act of barbarity in which NATO interfered in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state, sending the country with the highest Human Development
Index back into the dark ages, fragmented and crawling with terrorists. Not to mention
Afghanistan, started in 2001 and ongoing, where "allied" troops are photographed guarding opium
fields, where opium production has risen and where Talebaan fighters are seen escorting NATO
convoys, paid, like WTF?... and not to mention Syria, in which the same side once again allied
itself with terrorists as it did in Libya, terrorists which raped little girls before and after
they were beheaded, which raped nuns savagely in every orifice of their bodies, which impaled
little boys on stakes and which ripped the hearts out of Syrian soldiers and bit into them.
So we see what we are up against. And if all that were not enough today we have the idiotic
acts of provocation in the Baltic where a handful of NATO soldiers are cavorting around like
toy soldiers claiming to keep their countries safe. From what? Jupiter? Ah and yes, we have
Ukraine as the latest act of provocation.
It started off well before the so-called protests in Independence Square, Kiev with
subversion and organization of protesters who took to the streets in November 2013 and in late
February 2014, shots were fired from the sixth floor of Hotel Ukraine on the protesters in the
square below to create a "cause", the democratically elected President was ousted in an illegal
coup, massacres were perpetrated against Russian-speaking Ukrainians (this story seems to have
disappeared from the Western media) and Fascists shouted slogans such as "Death to Russians and
Jews". As a reaction, Russian-speaking Ukrainians defended themselves in South-East Ukraine and
in the absence of the due legal force in the Republic of Crimea, the Legislative Assembly, now
the organism with due legal force, organized a referendum on status and over ninety per cent of
the population (Russians) voted to reintegrate Russia. It's called Democracy. Maybe Washington
and its chihuahuas should try it some time.
What the BARFFS wanted Russia to do was to roll over, drop its pants and say "sock it to me,
babe". With another leader, that might have happened. Not with Putin. So now we have instead,
economic warfare with sanctions, more sanctions and increased sanctions, trying to tie a knot
around Russia's throat and tightening it, now linking Crimea to Abkhazia to South Ossetia, to
state-sponsored terrorism without a shred of respect for the law and the facts. It is by now
crystal clear what the West wants.
It wants to strangle the Russian economy to create unrest in Russia and create political
movements against Putin. It then wants to instal a west-friendly government which will see
Russia fragmented, sooner or later, into a myriad of republics, each one with their resources
controlled by foreigners.
That is what the sanctions are about. Let us see whose side God is on.
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war
was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the
bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering;
on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a
fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched
down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers
and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they
swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory with
stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest
intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in
the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of
Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which
moved every listener.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured
to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a
stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of
sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church
was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams --
visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing
sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the
surrender!
Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of
glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors
and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to
win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a
war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed
by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with
glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:
God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest,
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate
pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an
ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers,
and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in
the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong
and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them crush the foe, grant to them and
to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his
eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet,
his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy
face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and
wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side
and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence,
continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent
appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord and God, Father and Protector of
our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled
minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound
audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he
said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the
house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the
prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I,
His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import.
For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who
utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think. "God's servant and yours has prayed
his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one
uttered, and the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all
supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would
beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon
your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain on your crop which
needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse on some neighbor's crop which
may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by
God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you
in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant
that it was so! You heard the words 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is
sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words.
Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for
many unmentioned results which follow victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow
it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He
commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle -- be
Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our
beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody
shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their
wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of
fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help
us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the
wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in
summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee
for the refuge of the grave and denied it --
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract
their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain
the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble
and contrite hearts. Amen.
(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of
the Most High waits."
--
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in
what he said.
The rest of the world needs to rally around Russia. Regular Americans have no voice in
this insanity. Contacting Representatives/Senators does no good. The neocons, run by you
know who, seek to destroy Russia b/c they can't control Putin. The neocons are
psychopaths and care not about US or other lives nor even the interests of citizens -
they want war. Hope Putin can dodge this with China and the other BRICS.
http://theduran.com/us-sanc...
Hitler's plan for Russia was called "General Plan Ost."
After being conquered, the country up to and including the western third of Siberia was
to be carved up into a series of administrative regions like "Muscovy", "Ukraine" and
others, and exploited. The remaining two thirds of Siberia was to be given to Japan.
There was a special plan for Crimea because of its favourable climate. Cities like
Leningrad and Moscow were simply to be erased as serving no useful purpose in the Plan.
Moscow was to be submerged under an artificial lake.
The population of 200 million was to be reduced by "natural" means, ie starvation.
Different figures were given of the numbers who would have to die. 45 million, initially.
But ultimately only 15 million young Russian men and women would need to be retained as
slave labour.
The country would be comprehensively looted and run as a resource colony, supplying its
colonial overlords with grain, oil, timber and metal ores.
Of course, in the event the Plan was never carried out. Things didn't quite work out
according to the power point presentation. But like they say, it's the thought that
counts.
The western plan for the Russian Federation is broadly similar, except in the details.
They probably wouldn't bother submerging Moscow in an artificial lake. These plans came
very close to being realised and put into effect in 1941 and 1991. That these things did
not come to pass is not the result of any natural law. If circumstances had been slightly
different, all these things would now be part of the historical record. Maybe if the
weather had not been so severe in 1941. Or if German leadership and planning had been
slightly better. Or if some quisling stooge had come to power after the 1990s instead of
Putin. Any of these things could easily have happened. And Russia would just have been a
half forgotten memory, like the ancient civilisations of Central and South America.
And that is why Russia needs to stop referring to its "western colleagues and
partners."
What Russia is like today, with it's leader Vladimir Putin ,was meant to be .I firmly
believe this.
From the Sleeping Prophet Edgar Cayce sometime in the 1930's
"Through Russia comes the hope of the world. Not in respect to what is
sometimes termed Communism or Bolshevism -- no! But freedom -- freedom! That each
man will live for his fellow man. The principle has been born there. It will
take years for it to be crystallized; yet out of Russia comes again the hope of
the world." ~ Edgar Cayce
You could be right, but Russia has had some disastrous leaders in the past - Yeltsin,
Gorbachev, going back to Kerensky, or Tsar Nicholas. Not necessarily evil or corrupt,
maybe well meaning, but disastrous leadership. Imagine if someone of that kind was at the
helm now, someone like Merkel/ Macron/ May. It could have happened, and Russia would be
just like Ukraine today...
"Bring Them on and Let's See Whose Side God Is On!"
LOL, sounds like Erdogan who recently said "They have Dollars, we have our God".
Funny social media comments followed, such as; "Maybe God should be appointed our
economy minister". .. "As if 'they' don't have any God"... "Is God a Turk?" (which is
funny because "Allah" is an Arab God).
But religious people are totally unable to question; only they believe in the right
religion, in the right God and only they are God's favorite people. Everybody else is
doomed.
Russia must learn to counter the sanctions threat. If sanctions result in Russia
correcting the errors in how her money system functions (these all stemming from the
world banking monopoly which only ever issues money as an ever-increasing and ever more
dragonian burden on nations and people) then it will lead to prosperity based on Russia's
own vast natural resources, her own increasing production capacities and the material
requirements of her people. When Russia sweaps aside all the lies that the global banking
monopoly relies upon Russia will not only be truly free and prosperous, it will lead the
rest of the world in a better and more secure economic future.
Sanctions on Russia is of lesser importance than interest level
Let us say sanctions increase machinery cost for a farmer with 10%, so a $50,000 machine
will cost $55,000. That is $500 per year (downpayment 10 years)
While 1% interest on $500,000 (all his debt) is like $5000. Today's 15% interest on
$500,000 will be $75,000 per year.
Farmers need more sanctions anyway
Japan was loaded down with so many sanctioned that it had no choice but to attack
Hawaii. That was the plan after all - but the American people never found out about it
till - Now. Russia has more than a few hundred - Zero's to attack its enemy with. It's
another Washington game and once again the people of the US - are out to lunch.
The American people are brainwashed by their media about all this. They are swallowing
the lies b/c they don't get enuf alt media and even there, not enuf is reported. Most
still believe Crimea was militarily taken over by Russia. Keep getting the truth out.
God favors truth,I don't expect the racists blinded in their zeal,can concieve the
virtues of the real deal christain faith,not for the faint minded,nor them purists who
assume justice is easier said then done!
General Grant, who participated in the war against Mexico as a junior officer, said he
believed the Civil War was God's inevitable punishment for that act of illegal
aggression.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case
Unless you are talking that angry, vindictive, bloodthirsty, pedophilic "god", of the
Babylonian End of Times Death Cult.
Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end.
Putin and Trump are in bed with the pedophile evil of Israhell!
So it is obvious, the "God" which WASHINGTON DC/USA, Moscow and the Russian Orthodox
Church serves, is not the God, who is the Father, of Jesus the Christ, who did not say
crawl in bed with the Holocausting pedophiles!
Maybe Moscow's/ USA/WASHINGTON DC's God's name is Shekels.
"Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end".
Now John, as your friend who agrees and sympathizes with your righteous anger, surely
that's not exactly what he said? As I recall, he warned that it would better for such
people if they were drowned. The implication seems to be that God will punish them
severely - either now or, more likely, in the afterlife.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
All the Jews are screaming Fascist today
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case !
They are trying with all their deceptive stupidity,to project an image of Israhell
that is totally false. The little poor innocent insignificant Israhell that hurts no one
and minds its own business. Deception and evil is in their dna.
"... Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book, "Does the United States Have a Future?" was published on 12 October 2017. Both paperback and e-book versions are available for purchase on http://www.amazon.com and all affiliated Amazon websites worldwide. See the recent professional review http://theduran.com/does-the-united-states-have-a-future-a-new-book-by-gilbert-doctorow-review/ For a video of the book presentation made at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on 7 December 2017 see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciW4yod8upg ..."
Tharoor quotes from New York Times columnist David Brooks who concluded that Trump's behavior was that "of a man who
wants the alliance to fail." He quotes extensively from Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and leader of the Liberal
political fraction in the European Parliament fighting for a much more integrated EU, who sees Trump as the enemy of liberal internationalism
and ally of his own alt right enemies in Europe.
Tharoor also brings into play Martin Wolf of the Financial Times , who delivered a scathing attack on Trump for his rejection
of the West: " today the U.S. president appears hostile to core American values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law; he feels
no loyalty to allies; he rejects open markets; and he despises international institutions."
In the 23 July issue of "Today's World View," Tharoor takes advantage of the time gone by since Helsinki to refine the conclusions.
He offers a pithy commentary from Susan Glasser of The New Yorker : "We are witnessing nothing less than the breakdown of
American foreign policy."
In the same issue, Tharoor notes that public reaction to Trump in Helsinki is less pronounced than one might suppose from reading
the pundits. He offers the following remarks of colleagues on the results of a recent poll: "Most Americans do not feel Trump went
'too far' in supporting Puitn, and while more Americans say U.S. leadership has gotten weaker than stronger under Trump, his ratings
on this question are slightly improved from last fall."
If we go back in time to the days following Trump's visit to the NATO gathering in Brussels, we find in the headlines of the 11
July issue another take on what Trump is doing:
"Trump's NATO trip shows 'America First' is 'America Alone.'"
Here we read about Trump's insistence that America "stop footing Europe's bill" for its defense, namely his demand that all NATO
allies pay up 2% of GDP at once, not in the remote future; and that they prepare to double that to 4% very quickly. By intentional
abrasiveness, these moves by Trump are, Tharoor tells us, "undercutting the post-World War II order in pursuit of short-term, and
likely illusory, wins."
All of these comments address the question of what Trump opposes. However, Tharoor is unable to say what, if anything, Trump stands
for. There are only hints: continued US hegemony but without the ideological cover; might makes right; nationalism and the disputes
that lead to war.
Does this make sense? Or is it just another way of saying that Trump's foreign policy stance is an inconsistent patchwork, illogical
and doomed to fail while causing much pain and destruction along the way?
I fully agree with the proposition that Donald Trump is ripping up the post-Cold War international order and is seeking to end
NATO and the rest of the alliance system by which the United States has maintained its global hegemony for decades. But I believe
this destructive side is guided by a creative vision of where he wants to take US foreign policy.
This new foreign policy of Donald Trump is based on an uncompromising reading of the teachings of the Realist School of international
affairs, such as we have not seen since the days of President Teddy Roosevelt, who was its greatest practitioner in US history.
This is not isolationism, because Trump is acting to defend what he sees as US national interests in foreign trade everywhere
and in geopolitics in one or another part of the world. However, it is a world in which the US is cut free from the obligations of
its alliances which entail maintenance of overseas bases everywhere at the cost of more than half its defense budget. He wants to
end the risks of being embroiled in regional wars that serve our proxies, not core US national interests. And he is persuaded that
by a further build-up of military might at home, by adding new hi-tech materiel the US can secure its interests abroad best of all.
I reach these conclusions from the snippets of Trump remarks which appear in the newspapers of daily record but are intentionally
left as unrelated and anecdotal, whereas when slotted together they establish the rudiments of an integrated worldview and policy.
For example, I take his isolated remark that the United States should not be prepared to go to war to defend Montenegro, which
recently passed NATO accession, because Montenegro had been a trouble-maker in the past. That remark underwent virtually no analysis
in the media, though it could be made only by someone who understood, remarkably, the role of Montenegro at the Russian imperial
court of Nicholas II precisely as "troublemaker," whose dynastic family aided in their own small way the onset of WWI.
Donald Trump is not a public speaker. He is not an intellectual. We cannot expect him to issue some "Trump Doctrine" setting out
his Realist conception of the geopolitical landscape. All we get is Tweets. This inarticulate side of Trump has been used by his
enemies to argue he has no policy.
In fact, Trump is the only Realist on the landscape.
Going back to 2016, I thought he was being guided by Henry Kissinger during the campaign and then in the first months of his presidency,
I misjudged entirely. Trump is true to the underlying principles of Realism without compromise, whereas Henry K. made his peace with
the prevailing Wilsonian Idealism of the American Establishment a couple of decades ago in order to remain welcome in the Oval Office
and not to be entirely marginalized.
Trump's vision of Realism draws from the source in the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 with its guiding concept of sovereign nation-states
that do not intervene in others' domestic affairs. It further draws on the notions of raison d'état or national interest
developed by the French court of Louis XIV and then taken further by "perfidious Albion" in the eighteenth century, with temporary
and ever changing combinations of states in balance of power realignments of competitors. The history of the Realist School
was set out magnificently by Kissinger in his 1994 work Diplomacy . It is a pity that the master himself strayed from true
and narrow.
In all of this, you have the formula for Trump's respect, even admiration for Putin, since that also is now Vladimir Vladimirovich's
concept of Russia's way forward: as a strong sovereign state that sets its own course without the constraints of alliances and based
on its own military might.
The incredible thing is how a man with such poor communication skills, a man who does not read much came to such an integrated
vision that outstrips the conceptual abilities of his enemies, his friends and everyone in between.
We are tempted to look for a mentor, and one who comes to mind is Steve Bannon, who is very articulate, razor-sharp in his intellect
and who provided Trump with much of the domestic content of his 2016 campaign from the alt right playbook. And though Bannon publicly
broke with Trump in their falling out over his ever diminishing role in the Administration, Bannon's ongoing project, in particular
his Movement to influence European politics and shift it to the Right by coordinating activities across the Continent during the
parliamentary elections of May 2019, very closely parallel what Trump's ambassador in Berlin seems to be doing in Trump's name.
It may well be that the President and his confidantes find it prudent for him to play the hapless fool, the clueless disrupter
of the global political landscape until he has the support in Congress to roll out the new foreign policy that is now in gestation.
The logical consequence of such a Realist approach to foreign policy will be to reach an understanding with the world's other
two principal military powers, Russia and China, regarding respective spheres of influence in their geographic proximity. But I do
not believe we will see a G-3 succeeding America's unipolar moment. Given the predispositions of both Russia and China, we are more
likely to see a broader board of governors of global policy in the form of the G-20, ushering in the multipolar age. In such a formulation,
regional conflicts will be settled locally by the interested parties and with the major powers involved only as facilitators, not
parties to conflict. That promises a much more stable and peaceful future, something which none of Donald Trump's detractors can
begin to imagine as his legacy.
One has to wonder on how many fronts can Washington keep expanding America's military with the goal of fighting and actually
winning a war before it collapses under the weight of its expenditures?
Washington won't be winning any wars against Russia and/or China. It should stick with what it's good at, that is bombing third
world countries, on behalf of its Zionist masters. On second thoughts, it shouldn't be doing that either.
Viktoria Skripal spoke to her cousin Julia by phone twice in July: the first time on the
4th, when the two argued and Julia blamed Viktoria for the publicity over the poisoning; the
second time towards the end of the month, when Julia apologised to Viktoria after getting
Internet access and reading what had been reported in the media. In one of these phone calls,
Julia revealed her father was still using a breathing tube.
"... The area of contest is now the rest of the world. America will try to convince the rest of the world to join its sanctions against Russia. Russia will try to convince them not to. ..."
Hello,
All of this revolves around the imminent fact that the "honest" British spooks are about to
get exposed when Trump declassifies the hoax documents about Russian interference (lol) in
elections.
I don't understand why Russian economists believe they have to belong to the corrupt,
bankrupt us monopoly dollar system? stop all exports of gas, oil to the europe cowards, and
any other country that continues to steal the wealth of the Russian resources from its
people. A very sick bunch in DC and London.
Turn all of these resources inward to allow the Russian people to prosper, with energy
infrastructure, farming techniques with heated greenhouses, etc... hey you have a lot of real
farmers in Africa that could spawn new agricultural developments in the east Russian
territory, about 15,000 farmers, unbelievable opportunity and resources for Russia to help
people from a racially, evil to the core, government in Africa. Boycott all of Africa. There
are real people getting killed there, no fake news .
This is exactly how the West operates ,especially the US and UK. There you have it , right
out in open for everyone to see.They have been doing this for a long time , especially since
the CIA , part of the shadow government , took control of the Western world. Now it is no
longer covert ,it is right in our face. And why they had JFK assassinated ,because he saw
what he was up against . Kennedy wanted to smash these covert and corrupted organizations
into pieces.
Colluding with West for so many years to put down smaller countries is certainly not a
quality of an angelic government and the country as Russia has been sometimes painted. Why do
we forget tens of millions of Russians abused just across Russian borders, never mentioned by
the government that seems only to care about wellbeing of the criminal oligarchs? Why do we
forget the collusion against Serbian people that lasted for approximately 20 years and led to
the destruction of that small nation? Why do we forget Russian support to numerous UN (
Western) sanctions against many nations around the world? Why do we forget betrayal of Cuba
in such devious way by Mr. Putin? Why such contempt towards own nation and its heroes by
honouring a Nazi-like figure like Netanyahu on the Victory Parade? Why strangulation of N.
Korea? Why ,why.. I actually tend to believe that God is finally acting upon many curses cast
on Russian government and is using the US as his chosen tool. Quite a justice.
I was excoriated and accused of being a liar on RI over the weekend because I quoted this
article, originally published in Pravda. The point was made by the one who did this that no
Russian or Russian sympathizer (such as the author of this article would want additional
sanctions on Russia.
The comparison was that a small amounts of certain types of medicine can be beneficial,
but in large doses can be fatal. The gist of the comment was that a small amount of sanctions
can be good to bring more independence to the Russian economy, but additional sanctions would
be harmful.
Well, now RI itself publishes the article from the idiot Hinchey in asking for more and
more sanctions because of how wonderful they will be for Russia.
The area of contest is now the rest of the world. America will try to convince the
rest of the world to join its sanctions against Russia. Russia will try to convince them not
to.
I've always wanted to be a Putinbot. I think it would be a great job. Hoping for my KGB
badge. I've got my KGB watch (even though its made in Germany), just need my badge now (hope
it isn't made in China).
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
Please support antiwar.com -- a unique antiwar site in the climate of rabid militarism and
jingoism...
Notable quotes:
"... "the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect stooge." ..."
"... Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator! ..."
Libertarians are largely lost in the wilderness of the present era: wandering without a
compass, either moral or ideological, and without a clue as to how to get home, never mind
reach their ultimate goal of "freedom in our time." Yes, that was the old slogan that we
libertarians started out with: an optimistic battle-cry that, today, seems unrealistic, at
best. But is it? And if it isn't, who can show us the way forward?
My answer is simple: look at what Sen. Rand Paul is doing, and take a lesson. Instead of
weeping and wailing about the loss of a "libertarian moment" that never really happened, Sen.
Paul is making a difference. As Politicoreports
:
" Rand Paul has the ear, and the affection, of the most important person in the White
House: President Donald Trump.
"Once bitter rivals on the Republican campaign trail, the Kentucky senator and the
commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the
president likes to deride as 'foreign policy eggheads,' including those who work in his own
administration."
When Trump appointed the hawkish John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, the usual
suspects crowed that "the neocons have taken over the White House." Never mind that a) Bolton
is no neocon, and b) Trump is known for encouraging vigorous debate among his policy advisors
while not necessarily agreeing with one or the other – these people, mostly alleged
non-interventionists, hate the President for other reasons, and merely seized on the
appointment as a convenient talking point. However, this narrative is contradicted by the
reports of Sen. Paul's increasing influence in the Oval Office:
"While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the aide added, he shares a real bond with
Paul: 'He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul.'"
"Paul has quietly emerged as an influential sounding board and useful ally for the
president, who frequently clashes with his top advisers on foreign policy. The Kentucky
senator's relationship with Trump, developed via frequent cellphone calls and over rounds of
golf at the president's Virginia country club, became publicly apparent for the first time on
Wednesday when the senator announced he had hand-delivered a letter to the Kremlin on Trump's
behalf."
While the Beltway apparatus put together by the Kochs has jumped on the NeverTrump bandwagon
with both feet, publicly declaring war on the administration and announcing a de facto alliance
with the Democrats, Sen. Paul has made a difference in a key area that the Koch machine has
largely abandoned or reversed itself: foreign policy. Here's Politico again:
"Both Paul and Trump routinely rail against foreign entanglements, foreign wars, and
foreign aid – positions characterized as isolationist by critics and as 'America first'
by the president and his supporters. Even on points of where they disagree, Paul has
extracted small victories."
That one area is Iran, and even there it looks like Sen. Paul has his finger in the
dike:
"But Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with
Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White
House. '
Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this
person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle
East."
As the President launches peace initiatives from the Korean peninsula to the steppes of
Russia, the virtue-signalers among us pretend that none of that is happening and obsessively
descry the decision to exit the Iran deal. Yet where has all their moaning and groaning gotten
them? Sen. Paul is single-handedly doing more for peace than any of these bloviating
nonentities could dream of.
The hysteria aimed at the President is now directed at Sen. Paul, with the New York
Times in what is perhaps mistakenly presented as a "news" article
describing the Senator's relationship with the White House in words that are clearly over the
top:
"Suddenly, in the mind of the junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Trump has soared from
lower than that speck of dirt to high enough for Mount Rushmore."
One imagines the foam-flecked computer screen of the author was quite a mess well before she
reached the end of her jeremiad. Hatred for the President blends and merges with hatred for
Russia as the Fourth Estate becomes an instrument in the hands of the War Party. Vanity
Fair – that bastion of foreign policy expertise – shrieks
that
"the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian
iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer
Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace
with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect
stooge."
Yeah, suuure it does, Tina: anything you say. Just like those who wanted to end the
Vietnam war were "stooges" of Ho Chi Minh. Just like Ronald Reagan getting rid of a whole
category of nukes made him a "stooge" of Gorbachev.
And to get down to the real intellectual heavyweight: S. E. Cupp, whose credentials seem to
be phony glasses and blondness, vomits up her considered opinion
that Sen. Paul is now Putin's "errand boy." Which is far better than being Max Boot's errand girl , but
don't anyone tell Iraq war-supporting Ms. Cupp that she has blood on her hands. She feels no
need to apologize.
Oh yes, the heavies are out in force, sliming Sen. Paul for defending the President's
Helsinki peace initiative with nuclear-armed Russia. Vanity Fair , S. E. Cupp –
who's next? Madonna? Women's Wear Daily ?
Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed
scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand
for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and
change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the
wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every
person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator!
It could be the Trump was already deposed as a President by Pompeo.
I never understood appointment of Haley and appointment of Bolton if we assume that Trump is not a neocon and does not want to
continue previous administration policies. Haley is kind of Sikh variant of
Samantha
Power. Bolton is probably as bad as Wolfowitz. Pompeo also can be viewed as Hillary 2.0.
Notable quotes:
"... In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties. ..."
"... The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government. ..."
"... However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline. ..."
"... Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England. ..."
"... All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country. ..."
"... It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place. ..."
"... With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever. ..."
"... Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise. ..."
Forget about running the Empire or the American state. Trump isn't even in control of his team US President Donald Trump is not in
control of his own administration, as evidenced by the latest round of sanctions imposed against Russia for the alleged involvement
in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK in March.
The sanctions came the same day that US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,
announced
on a trip to Moscow that he had handed over a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump calling for better relations
between the two countries. For that reason, the timing appears to be suspect, suggesting strongly that Trump has his own foreign
policy while the Trump administration, comprised mainly of bureaucrats referred to as the Deep State, have their own. Right now,
they appear to be in control, not President Trump, over his own administration, and it is having the adverse effect of further alienating
Washington and Moscow.
The neocons, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his United Nations ambassador
Nikki Haley, comprise the Trump " war cabinet " ostensibly aimed at directing a harder line toward Syria, North Korea, Iran
but also Russia. Bolton, in particular, has been outspoken in calling for regime change in some of these countries. Trump not so
much so. In fact, he has said just the opposite. Nevertheless, their anti-Russian flair in Washington has breathed new life into
the neocons who, along with the Democrats, Deep State and much of the mainstream media, have pushed the false narrative of collusion
between Russia and Trump.
This persistent anti-Russian rant and repeated sanctions which have been imposed have had the effect of leading to further threats
of sanctions for questionable reasons, raising the potential prospect of suspension of diplomatic ties.
Even at the height of the Cold War, relations between the US and Russia never reached such low depths as they have now. The latest
sanctions affect primarily dual-use technologies which are civilian products with potential military applications. They include gas
turbine engines, electronics and integrated circuits which will now be denied. Previous sanctions going back to the Obama administration,
however, already imposed bans on many of these dual-use technologies.
In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will
no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be
implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it
destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties.
Implementation of the sanctions stem from provisions of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination
Act of 1991.
The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the
now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that
conclusion following an initial determination by the British government.
However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of
the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a
letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline.
Curiously, the British government hasn't implemented similar sanctions, although the US has. It may reflect the continued uncertainty
among some British politicians and experts over the origin of the Novichok and concern with Britain's trade dependency on Russia.
But since the Americans opted to implement sanctions due to existing legislation, there was apparently no objection from London even
though it initially implemented sanctions by kicking out Russian diplomats from the country.
Moscow, however, vehemently denied that it was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. Novichok was created by
Russian scientists during the Cold War but never used on the battlefield. Russian officials asked Britain for evidence of Russian
involvement and called for a joint investigation to be conducted by the Kremlin and British governments.
The British government repeatedly turned down the offer, as did other Western members of the United Nations Security Council,
the US and France, when Moscow sought such a joint investigation.
The US claimed that the information linking the poison to Russia was " classified ."
Strangely, a government research
facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain
of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and
the Public Health England.
Results from the examination confirmed the poison was a form of Novichok but – importantly – could not determine where the poison
had been created or who had used it. This development created further confusion and prompted disputes among politicians.
It is known that samples of Novichok have been in the hands of many
NATO countries for years after
the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, had reportedly obtained a sample from a Russian defector
in the 1990s.
The formula was later shared with Britain, the US, France, Canada and the Netherlands, where small quantities of Novichok reportedly
were produced in an effort to develop countermeasures. Porton Down labs similarly had received samples to study. Czech President
Milos Zeman recently admitted that his country synthesized and tested a form of Novichok. Sweden and Slovakia also have the technical
capability to produce the nerve agent, according to Russian officials.
All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning
of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any
evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the
country.
It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up
to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place.
With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect,
it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse
for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral
world order being challenged more than ever.
The reason, however, isn't due to anything that Moscow initiated but by Trump himself who isn't in control of his own administration,
and maybe never has been. Many of his campaign promises such as dropping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iranian
nuclear agreement, the threat of sanctions against any company that trades with Iran, his tariff war with US allies are in conflict
with each other, leading to increased world instability. At the same time, Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but
the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise.
F. Michael Maloof is a former Pentagon security analyst.
I believe Russia sees the sanctions for what they are. A crude attempt to
provoke them into a hasty reaction. It is virtually certain they won't react in a childish or inconsidered way.
Paul Craig Roberts is well behind the curve when it comes to what is
believed about the west in Russia politics.
A clue might be in the fact they have just
reduced their $ reserves to 14 billion, down from nearly 200 4 or so years ago.
Like Iran,
the Russians know the U.S.A. Is about as reliable as a third hand condom and just as
classy.
"... Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. ..."
"... The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war. I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack" on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep drifting towards actual war. ..."
"... I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave. ..."
"... Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a hostile act by Europe. ..."
"... Any compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again. ..."
"... Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely – then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world order. ..."
"... Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly doesn't give two hoots about. ..."
The Trump administration is hitting Russia with new sanctions punishing President Vladimir
Putin's government for using a chemical weapon against an ex-spy in Britain, U.S. officials
told NBC News Wednesday.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on a determination that Russia violated
international law by poisoning the former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in March,
officials said, a decision that was announced Wednesday afternoon by State Department.
The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis.
A second, more painful round kicks in three months later unless Russia provides "reliable
assurances" that it won't use chemical weapons in the future and agrees to "on-site
inspections" by the U.N. -- conditions unlikely to be met. The second round of sanctions
could include downgrading diplomatic relations, suspending state airline Aeroflot's ability
to fly to the U.S, and cutting off nearly all exports and imports.
Section 7 covers the sanctions that are to be imposed, which consist of initial sanctions,
and further sanctions to be imposed after 90 days if there is no compliance on the country's
part.
Initial sanctions : Ban on foreign assistance, arms sales, denial of US credit, and
exporting national security sensitive goods. (Most of this is already functionally in place
with respect to Russia).
Further sanctions : Ban on multilateral bank assistance [e.g. IMF, World Bank, the EBRD,
etc], ban on US bank loans, a near total export ban (except food and agricultural commodities)
and import ban, downgrade or suspension of US diplomatic relations, revocation of landing
rights to air carriers controlled by the government of the sanctioned country.
Reuters has a US State Department official saying that the sanctions
would not apply to Aeroflot, which some commenters have
qualified as backtracking. But I think that the official was merely talking of the initial
sanctions.
How does Russia go about removing the sanctions? The President will need to "certify" to
Congress that the country in question: (1) Has made "reliable assurances", and is not making
preparations, to use chemical/biological weapons in violation of international law, or against
its own citizens; (2) is willing to allow on-site inspections by UN observers to confirm the
above; (3) is making restitutions to the victims of its chemical/biological weapons usage.
This would basically require Russia to admit guilt for the Skripal poisoning and subject
itself to the inspections regimes that the US typically tries to force on "rogue states." In
other words, it is out of the question.
Moreover, even in the theoretical possibility that this goes through, it's not like
President Trump's "certification" will be worth anything amidst the Russiagate hysteria.
Another possibility to avoid the near cessation of trade between the US and Russia is to
have the President "waiver" the application of individual sanctions, if he can determine and
certify to Congress that doing so is necessary for the national security interests of the US;
or that there has been "a fundamental change in the leadership and policies" of the sanctioned
country. In either case, the President needs to provide a report to Congress explaining his
detailed rationale for the waiver, and listing steps the sanctioned country is taking to
satisfy the "removal of sanctions" clause.
The newspaper Kommersant has published a full draft of the proposed "Defending American
Security from Kremlin Aggression Act," which demands a U.S. investigation into Vladimir
Putin's personal wealth and whether Russia sponsors terrorism, and would impose a ban on U.S.
citizens buying Russian sovereign debt, though the U.S. Treasury publicly opposed this idea
in February, warning that it would disrupt the market broadly. Republican Senator Lindsey
Graham, one of the initiative's sponsors, says one of the draft legislation's goals is to
impose "crushing sanctions."
[Sanctions to include:]
* Banning the banks . The draft bill proposes banning Russia's biggest state banks --
Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Rosselkhozbank, Promsvyazbank, or Vnesheconombank -- from
operating inside the United States, which would effectively prevent these institutions from
conducting dollar settlements.
* Oil and gas . In the energy sector, the legislation would impose sanctions on investment
in any projects by the Russian government or government-affiliated companies outside Russia
worth more than $250 million. Businesses would also incur penalties for any participation
(funding or supplying equipment or technology) in new oil projects inside Russia valued above
$1 million.
* Lists and research . If the bill is submitted in its current form and adopted, the U.S.
president would have 180 days to begin implementing its provisions; within 60 days of
adoption, the White House would need to provide a new list of Russian individuals suspected
of cyber-attacks against the United States; the Treasury Department would have 180 days to
update its "Kremlin list" of Russian state officials and oligarchs; the director of national
intelligence would be tasked with completing a "detailed report on the personal net worth and
assets" of Vladimir Putin and his family; and the State Department would have 90 days to
determine whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
* A new Sanctions Office . In order to shore up the 2017 Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act, the draft legislation would also create an "Office of Sanctions
Coordination" within the State Department to coordinate work with the Treasury.
(1) The bill's sponsors, which include Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, and Ben Cardin,
preface their text with a call for President Trump to demand Russia stop interference in US
"democratic processes", return Crimea to the Ukraine, stop supporting the separatists in East
Ukraine, as well the "occupation and support of separatists" in the territories of Georgia and
Moldova, and support for Bashar Assad, who continues to commit "war crimes."
(2) They note that the general drift of the document is towards a consolidation of separate
anti-Russian sanctions, from the "Ukrainian" to the "cyber" ones, into a "single
mechanism."
(3) Subject to a 2/3 vote in the Senate, the bill also includes a ban on financing "direct
or indirect" steps, that have as their goal to support the attempts of "any US government
official" to take the country out of NATO. Every 90 days, the US Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Defense Minister, would be required to present a report to the relevant
committees in Congress about "threats to NATO", which would include attempts to weaken US
commitments to the alliance. Considering Trump's ambiguous feelings on NATO, this part is
primarily aimed at Trump himself.
(4) There are calls to "pressure" Russia from interfering with UN and the OPCW attempts to
investigate chemical weapons usage, as well as to "punish" Russia for producing and using
chemical weapons. This directly syncs this sanctions bill to the previous one.
The report concludes that it's not yet clear how to interpret this. In the worse case, it
could be a "preliminary application" for a UN campaign to exclude Russia from the Security
Council; alternatively, it could just be a "pragmatic" run-up to merely invoking great
sanctions, as with Iran in 1983.
***
I suppose we now also know why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15 billion
from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
For comparison,
the last time such a drawback happened (but which only lasted three weeks) was in the
immediate aftermath of Crimea.
The last time Russia pulled such a large sum out of the U.S. was just after the annexation
of Crimea in 2014, when the central bank withdrew about $115 billion from the New York Fed,
Reuters reported last year, citing two former Fed officials. Most of that money was returned
a few weeks later, after it became clear that the scope of initial U.S. sanctions would be
narrower than the Kremlin expected, according to the news service.
But I suppose this drawdown would now be permanent, since it is increasingly evident that
Iran-tier sanctions on Russia are now on the horizon.
These sanctions are either going to steadily creep in – or rush in like a tsunami if
there is a Blue Wave in 90 days, or if Trump was to be removed.
However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly
punish Russia is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the
economic output. Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.
Moreover, as I have pointed out , Russia has
plenty of surprising ways to hurt the US as well. For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to
the US has a simple response – banning US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia,
period. It can resurrect a bill – first raised this May, since sunken in the legislature
– to impose fines and prison time
on individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with
Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated
copyrights regimen out of the window.
Some questions we should now be asking include:
1. Precisely how far is the US prepared to go? Cutting off its own trade with Russia is one
thing – penalizing foreign companies that do business with Russia is something else. As
Ben Aris
notes , the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions against Oleg
Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals market. The
ideological Russiagaters need to balance their PDS/TDS against the pecuniary practicalities of
catering to finance and oil & gas interests and their lobbies.
2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US sanctions
against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine precisely how
deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.
This sounds very close to a declaration of war. USA is beginning to throw everything it has
behind economic warfare and go "all in" forcing even its closest allies to either suffer
serious sanctions for not joining the economic attacks or to inflict self-harm by limiting
trade with Russia, Iran, and anyone else the US chooses to declare economic warfare upon.
I don't believe that this set of circumstances can continue indefinitely without a serious
realignment or a degeneration into "kinetic" warfare.
Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. Lunatic asylum
is the most appropriate place for the whole American "leadership", down to the last
man/woman/tranny. The only thing that stands between us and WWIII, which would be a suicide
of humanity, is unbelievably cool and reasonable position of Putin and the rest of Russian
leadership.
It is clear to anyone with a brain that the US "sanctions" on Russia have zero chance of
changing Russia's stance on any international issues of consequence. Crimea is a good
example: it will return to Ukraine the day after the Hell freezes over. On the same date
Georgia gets South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and US-sponsored Islamic bandits win over Assad in
Syria. Thus, The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's
hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war.
I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid
for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal.
I agree. They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack"
on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get
psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep
drifting towards actual war.
There is also a lot of projection going on here: the Americans obviously perceive their
own election meddling as war by other means, and so they accuse their enemies with the very
same thing.
Russia is far too integrated in to the wider European economy, and Russia is too stronk for
sanctions to do anything. See Nord Stream II. Ignore the Israel lobby sanctions, not even the
corrupt congress critters could vote for those.
I have no idea why these new meaningless sanctions have been conjured up, maybe the Rand
Paul letter has the answer, maybe not. I think we may have some answers after the
midterms.
I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is
more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes
of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave.
Now that it is within the realms of reasonable debate, if there were a nuclear war between
the USA and Russia what targets would be hit? Would Russia hit puppet regimes such the UK,
France or Poland? Would the USA hit Iran (because if they are going to hit Russia they might
as well get Iran in there as well).
If say only Russian and USA were hit, how much of the nuclear fallout would affect
Europe?
Why, if Putin threatened Netanyahu to call off his dogs, he would have to? Actions of
AIPAC should be accountable.
Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has
reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a
hostile act by Europe.
Russia today is in a much better position to withstand sanctions. Global oil investments have
been lagging for half a decade due to low prices, and this will inevitably show up in the
coming years.
Russia in 2014 was battered by a twin storm, of which the oil price collapse was in fact far
worse. That factor is now gone.
Furthermore, a planned VAT rise next year will mean that the break-even oil price for the
Russian budget will fall to $50 after $60 this year and $67 last year, according to Alfa
Bank's analysis . Steady, impressive
improvement. So even in an event of an unexpected oil price decline, Russia is far more
prepared this time around.
Additionally, over the last 4 years, Russia's economy has indigenised to a much greater
extent than before. This is especially the case in the financial markets. Russia is simply a
lot less reliant on foreign funding. Bershidsky wrote about how more and more Russian
companies are leaving UK capital markets and returning to Russia. This process will continue
but it has already yielded results. As a country with a large current account surplus, tamed
inflation, an incredibly strong fiscal state, there is indeed very little that the US can do,
which is probably why they are reaching with ever-greater desperation.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be
partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi
has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again.
India has
always bristled at being treated as a close ally rather as a 'partner'. It has cherished it's
non-aligned movement legacy and its historically close relations to Russia. It is unlikely to
want to give up on that in order to become a subservient lapdog to US interests in the manner
that the EU has degraded itself.
China's AIIB is a good start, but the full range of new institutions must bear fruit. Some
of the BRICS ideas are good but ultimately both Brazil and South Africa are too unimportant.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Turning to Europe. Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely
– then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the
US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the
non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world
order.
America now has a "good cop, bad cop" with Trump and Congress.
Congress puts in more sanctions, but there is constraint responding too much because Trump
seems friendly, and you don't want to alienate him. Trump himself doesn't care about the sanctions, because he thinks it is leverage that he
can lift them later.
There was an article a few months ago that Trump is actually worse than Obama – even
in Obama did not supply direct weapons to Ukraine.
I think Trump plans to remove the sanctions in the next year and improve the relations
– but without any kind of timetable (his meeting with Putin is delayed already to next
year).
OT: The Turkish lira is now the worst-performing currency this year, bar none.
Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while
pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say
Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly
doesn't give two hoots about.
Turkey was not entirely foolish to believe this strategy could work. Pakistan during the
reign of Islamist military dictator Zia ul-Haq, used a similar strategy during the 1980s. He
empowered the mullahs and moved Pakistan decidedly to the hard-right in religious/cultural
terms while massively opening up the economy to speculative finance, thereby pleasing
Washington. Saudi Arabia has used this policy for a long time. For those who knew this, the
revelation that the US funded some of the most extremist "moderate" rebels in Syria came as
no shock.
So perhaps it isn't the Islamism in of itself which is the problem in Erdogan's case. What
could it be? Well, one clue is the case of Pastor Brunson. The good pastor, who under house
arrest in Turkey, is accused to be close to the Gülen cult. The official line in the
Western MSM is that Trump is trying to appease evangelicals before the midterms. I don't buy
that. He has them in the bag regardless. Gülen himself, some of you might recall, still
lives in the US despite repeated pleas from Turkey to give him back. Which is the unreliable
ally here? Curiously, Gülen's religious bent is even more Islamist than Erdogan's. He's
also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
At any rate, the demand from the US has been for Turkey to release Brunson
unconditionally. Erdogan's media has speculated that Brunson was slated to become CIA chief
in Turkey had the 2016 coup come to pass. Obviously, Turkey does not want to release him
unconditionally: it makes them look extremely weak. Well, they now got hit where it hurts.
Indeed, Trump even tweeted out new sanctions news today even as Erdogan was delivering a
speech. I don't happen to believe in coincidences. The result is that the lira lost close to
a quarter of its value in a single day. I haven't even mentioned Turkey's apparent interest
in the S-400 missile system among other matters. This, I think, is what truly irked D.C.
rather than Erdogan's human rights record or "authoritarianism", which is just the
pretext.
Make no mistake: the decline of the lira was structural from the beginning. Turkey's large
CAD made it extremely vulnerable to financial speculation from the getgo. It has now paid
that price. But this does not preclude the fact that countries which are overtly reliant on
Western financial flows to fund large current account deficits should forgo the lesson that
there is no free lunch. Erdogan made this cardinal error. Poland is not nearly as vulnerable,
but we're also in the same orbit. This is why I always laugh at the Poland Stronk memes. It's
also why I dismiss the criticism against Orban that he plays all sides, including taking
money from the EU, as politically naïve. Very few countries in this world can reliably
be called truly independent. Russia is in the process of becoming one. So is China. India is
not quite there, but it has the potential. The rest of us will simply have to balance
hegemons, while reminding ourselves of our inherent vulnerability. If we forget that, then we
just had a textbook example of what happens when we overestimate our hand, playing out in
front of our very eyes today.
Good to hear something sensible from Polish Perspective (in every sense of this
expression). I know some Poles, who tend to be reasonable people, so the policies of Polish
government always amazed me. Then again, if Polish democracy is similar to the US, the
opinions of the people don't matter at all.
There is still a long way to go before Russia, China, or any other country frees itself
from the clutches of dollar-based financial system. However, an alternative might look
parallel at the beginning, but it won't be parallel for long. Thing is, the US dollar and the
US sovereign debt have become essentially Ponzi schemes. If Russia, China, and a few others
create a "parallel" system, dollar-based Ponzi scheme folds, as the US does not have
sufficient assets to support the dollar or pay off its debt. The fall of the Empire will
likely be violent. The only thing we can hope for is that the humanity survives it.
As to EU, it missed every chance of becoming something with a spine. Too late now. In
fact, what French president once said about Arafat (he never missed an opportunity to miss an
opportunity) applies to the EU with a vengeance.
I suppose we now also now why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15
billion from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
You're making the Kremlins look smarter than they actually are. They should have done this
4 years ago. What I want to know is what happened to the proceeds from the sale? CBR data
shows that value of "foreign exchange" held by the CBR hasn't declined:
Now I can't use the Export-Import Bank insure the export of American-made products from a
swing state to Russia. Really Making America Great Again! Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Regarding India, they are asking America for a permission to keep buying Russian weapons.
Asking for a sanctions "waiver" – this is just sad. India also agreed to reduce imports
of Iranian oil. So, perhaps, not so independent anymore.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth. But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil,
our economy will shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.
Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Rohrabacher is a flake and blowhard as well. If he were in the running for Secretary of
State, he could just as easily flip and become militantly anti-Russian in order to impress
people in Washington. Appearing tough on foreigners in front of one's peers in Washington is
their prime motive. They've been like this since before the Vietnam War era.
Obviously a good read overall, but there was this one part that I found particularly well,
interesting, and actually quite surprising:
"Moreover, the mid-2020s will also see a massive influx of electric vehicles into the
global car fleet, which could lead to a final collapse in oil prices. There was practically
no real diversification: the number of industrial robots per worker in Russia is at the
level of Iran and India. Meanwhile, "effective managers" like Sechin turned out to be so
effective that Rosneft's debts exceed the value of the company itself from this year. An
acute economic crisis in a few years is almost inevitable. "
So I'm clearly not even entirely sure whether that translation is accurate, but it really
seems like you're kind of suddenly much more pessimistic on the Russian economy. Or is that
just the "best-case" scenario for Russian nationalists?
Didn't you rate Putin's "economic management" reasonably highly not a long time ago, just
before the Presidential elections? Of course compared to the situation in 2000, but
still.
You've also pointed out several times that Russia's oil dependency has been considerably
exaggerated. Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
Jon Hellevig's research and numbers as well (GDP share of oil & gas, the consolidated
budget, etc). And Polish Perspective's comment above.
So shouldn't the repeat of 2014 be kind of unlikely, if not impossible? At this rate,
Russia's remaining oil dependency should already be considerably lower by the mid-20s,
despite all those technological limitations.
You don't believe in an annual growth of 3% anymore? You seriously think there will be an
"acute crisis" in a few years?
I actually just read that even the always (or atleast recently) conservative/pessimistic
Russian authorities (in this case, the Economic Development Ministry) forecast a growth rate
of atleast around 3% beginning from 2021, after the VAT hike, some other "reforms" and
increasing spending.
At the same time, Trump his helping to push the Turkish economy off a cliff with his Twitter
account. Russia and Turkey find themselves in the same boat. So?
Israel and Netanyahu responsible for American sanctions on Russia, conspiracy makes less
sense to me than the others I read here (Israel responsible for killing Kennedy, etc). Why do
Israel want to impose American sanctions on Russia?
This week's sanctions mainly targeting Russian airlines. Aeroflot is about to buy 30
Boeing 737s from America – and now this is in danger.
In Israel, Aeroflot is the third airline, and Israeli government pays it direct subsidies
to reduce the ticket prices for places like Eilat. They allow Aeroflot to put giant Aeroflot
commercial posters along the roads and skyscrapers.
According to the news earlier in the year, Israel is negotiating to join a customs union
with the Eurasian Economic Union. How will they reconcile their own actions, with being the
one responsible for America to sanction Russia? It would be very competent 4 dimensional
chess, from people who cannot even count their illegal immigrants or deport a single illegal
immigrant, or coordinate their nationality policy with a few thousand druze. While making
America sanction Russia has no benefit for them, deporting illegal immigrants, or
coordinating with Druze has important benefits for them (yet supposedly they can do the
former, but not the latter).
At the same time, they do the opposite of sanctioning themselves.
Also if this is the case, how in Russia, nobody in the expert community is aware Israel is
responsible for the sanctions. Instead the media celebrate when it still wants to export
carrots. And if any of the Kremlin top think relations with Israel are bad, then why is
Israel allowed to operate freely in Russia.
If explanation is to do with Syria – it also does not fit. Intervention in Syria was
presented as something which would encourage West to remove its sanctions.
For Israel, Russian-American alliance would improve the situation in the region. And also
probably for Turkey and the Arabs.
Israel is terrified with an increase of Iran in Syria. The reality is that is that both
Russia and America is going to reduce presence in Syria, and Iran is going to increase it.
The problem of Russia in Syria for Israel, is that Russia's presence is only minimal, and
will allow Iran on the ground to take over the same territories that Russia helps secure for
Assad. In the current equation and stage of the war, they will be hoping Russia increases its
presence and reduces the need for Iranian forces. Problem of Assad for them is his only to
the extent of his relation with Iran, not with Russia.
Before the Trump-Putin summit, the Mueller involved FBI indicted 12 Russians, knowing full
well that they'd not be turned over to the US. This latest round of sanctions comes right
after Rand Paul's trip to Moscow, for the purpose of seeking closer US-Russian relations.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge. He
leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK, there're
Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the Russian
government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to kill two
birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government disclosure
on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the Russian
government.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions.
Seconded. Washington is too much in love with their sanctions.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
It's up to 50% of the federal budget in recent years, is funded by oil and gas revenue,
although in low oil price years the proportion can fall (to lower 40s%).
When the proportion falls, then you are by definition financing a federal budget in other
ways, which are usually less politically popular.
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
Raising pension age (as needs to often be repeated to people) is necessary and reasonable,
but raising VAT is a bad thing as in most countries.
Karlin is probably too pessimistic about oil price demand peaking in 2020s (demand for oil
probably peaking in the 2030s).
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms, reduction of size of government
sector, increase in proportion of private sector in many areas, investment in education for
future industries.
Having Russia go pirate on US copy-rite laws could be interesting. Do you think the US would
build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing Russian content, and could they
actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like back in the good old 90′s days
with Napsternik?
Russia might even make some headway with Pirate Party types. Information belongs to the
people, comrades! Also Russia switching to Linux would probably lead to an increased development of
Linux.
Looks like these sanctions will force their hand: their new narrowbody airliner was going
to have pratt and witney engines with the aviadvigatel ones only for government planes. Not
sure what the exact reasons for this were: p&w ones have a slightly higher bypass ratio,
it allows international buyers to utilise existing service infrastructure or aviadvigatel's
ability to mass produce might be crap. If the us imposes a complete export ban they'll all
have to have them.
Russia's current widebody airliner is pretty much obsolete though.
Aeroflot had benefited from collapse of Transaero. They're getting 35 planes (all Airbus and
Boeing models) from the Transaero fleet and are putting them into Aeroflot fleet this year.
With Boeing, they also had an order of Dreamliners, which they cancelled a few years ago.
Although that was just because there was a downturn in long-haul flights. New Boeing 737
orders are for building up their lowcoster "Pobeda".
For that, Russia needs to produce all types of civilian aircraft, like the USSR did.
That's hard after the 1990s, when the traitors destroyed Russian aircraft industry. There are
moves in the direction of restoring it, in cooperation with China. However, they both need to
be able to build aircraft w/o any parts from the US and its vassals. That would take 5-10
years. In fact, US sanctions pushed Russia and China in the direction of self-sufficiency
very hard. In Russian it is called "sawing off the bough you sit on". The West is really good
at that lately.
These sanctions might be a net positive for Russia in the long term, forcing them to
develop indigenous industries instead of just importing everything from the oil revenue.
Do you think the US would build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing
Russian content, and could they actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like
back in the good old 90′s days with Napsternik?
The "free market" of Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify will protect good Americans from
fake news.
Presumably they can still source from Rolls Royce. The UK is a smaller economic power than
America and presumably less interested in sabotaging one of its crown jewels (never rule it
out with the UK ofc).
Russia's aerospace technology is inferior to the West, but that's irrelevant since Russia
can simply force Russian carriers to purchase Russian aircraft. Higher operating costs
relative to foreign carriers can be addressed with subsidies (or tariffs).
Prioritizing your own technology also creates the option of charting an independent
technological course. For instance, instead of building swept-wing jets with low bypass
turbofan engines optimized for transonic cruise, you could build straight-wing aircraft with
propfans optimized for low fuel consumption. You can also build supersonic aircraft and
experiment with different planforms than the boring one established by the Boeing 707.
It's kind of funny how many Americans feel threatened by Iran.
Regarding Russia as a threat at least makes a certain sense given Russia's nuclear arsenal
and ability to destroy the US.
Every time Medvedev opens his mouth, he makes me cringe. Seriously, if you're going to
proclaim an "economic war", against USA no less, then you better explain how Russia is going
to fight back and win. Smart Russians will be heading to currency exchange (
обменный
пункт ) after hearing this statement.
More fuel consumption than is usual with modern aircraft, noisier passenger cabin, more
external noise (also important for some airports with regulations restricting noisy
aircraft), less safety, etc.
It's just not competitive to operate them. Airlines have very low margins anyway, you
cannot make a profit with obsolete aircrafts.
There are a couple of new planes which Aeroflot is going to buy/buying for shorthaul
– Superjet 100 and MC-21. Karlin was blogging about these planes a few weeks ago.
Airtickets are a freemarket, and most passengers don't want to fly in unsafe old planes
like Tu-154
A single crash can be even fatal for an airline – crash of an An-148 has earlier
this year, destroyed Saratov Airlines
As a customer, I don't think there is any disgrace in buying Boeing and Airbus. All major
airlines now, and around the world, are using mainly Airbus and Boeing, and have now retired
the Tu-154.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth
AND also Ukraine's, Moldova's, Georgia's, the Baltics and the friendly countries like
Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan etcetera. If anything the US's moron, scumbag policy towards
Russia ends up doing the exact opposite of what it intends to do Ukraine, Moldova, Gerogia and
Baltics then become more financially interlinked and even dependent on Russia than they were
before.
But in the circumstances ..is guaranteed 1% or 1.5% GDP growth per year for the next
decade even that bad considering the circumstances? Every social/infrastructure element is
improving in Russia
The enemy is probably laughing his ass off at Medvedev. One simply should NOT be making
such statements as a prime-minister of Russia. Here is another fool, who doesn't understand currency markets:
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
It's fake outrage and fake unpopularity on these two issues. 18% increased to 20% is a
non-issue ( the budget is being spent significantly better than ever to offset this increase
in VAT)
A lot of nonsense about "long overdue" get's said about pension reform but this is total
BS.
Yes Russia has 48 million out of 146 million as pensioners, but the most important thing is
the unexpected , way above average increase in life expectancy . that has actually instigated
this move by the authorities.
Those approaching retirement won't suddenly have to work 1-5 years longer they can still
opt-in to the current arrangements in the overlapping period.. and with guarantees pension
increased much further to corresponding inflation levels than now.
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms
Disagree with this .the same patterns that have been shown in the last 4 years need to
continue, no radical "reform" is necessary. Small and medium sized business have gone from 10
million to 20 million people and should easily reach the target in afew years time that the
President wished for in May,credit behavior and availability is becoming more and more
western,
Instead of saying "reduction in size of government sector" you must specify exactly which
areas of state control should be privatised .too often from liberasts their focus is solely
on getting state control off critically important energy resources and distribution .nothing
else.
Americans see the Russians as greatness deniers. Their European lackeys are their
greatness-acknowledgers – even when it's detrimental to their own survival.
If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers – the
role of the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.
Russia is not a part of the audience, it's not even a heckler. It's a performer, it has
always been, and a very talented one too. To try to demote them to the role of spectators, or
to try to usher them out of the concert hall can be suicidal, they have enough musical
instruments to put on a remarkable concert – even if afterwards no one is left to
applaud.
Mice and humans are quite different, results applying to mice apply to humans less than
50% of the time. The loss rates on this, at any rate, are insane:
Of the 1348 embryos they made, eight pups were born.
Every beginning is hard. Considering that all the cutting edge research in
fertility/cloning/artificial wombs is done on shoestring budgets, the progress is amazing.
Imagine what could be done with sufficient funding.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
The West is stymied by the "pro-lifers" of the right and "bioethicists" of the left, and this
is Russia's chance. Unlike the origial M project, Russians can keep things secret, and even
if the West will suspect something, what can they do? Impose sanctions?
In the thirties, ignorant Caucasian moustacheoid gangster picked the Lysenkoists over the
scientifically correct Darwinist transhumanist eugenicists. Time to undo this mistake.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
And it will have as much impact on the outcome of the looming confrontation as the
Mengele's research had on the outcome of the WWII.
He's also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
The west has no qualms about using Islamist. Radical Islam has been used in 1950s against
Nasser's regime in Egypt. Islamist were used against secular pro Soviet regime of Afghanistan
and then against Assad's Syria, Hussain's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya. The equation is
complicate: on one side you have Israel's Yinon Plan and global neoliberal and Islamists and
on the other side you have secular national countries that try to build greater sovereignty
and stronger state.
Majority of Islamist are just useful idiots while some among the leadership are operatives
of western security services. Sometimes they break off the leash like Hamas which it does not
seem to be controlled by Mossad anymore but it still does everything from the wish list of
Israel's hard-liners.
My pet theory is that Islamist of Iran who destroyed the fast growing and developing Iran
of Shah were also used by some foreign interests in the west and/or Israel. Shah himself
believed it was the British.
You should look at history of your own country in 19 and 20 century. To what extent all
those patriots responsible for numerous and hopeless uprisings were useful idiots, dupes or
operatives of foreign interests?
Question about the Skripal poisoning–if it wasn't the Russians, then who did it?
Also, it's interesting that Sergei Skripal's poisoning has resulted in much more Western
action than Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning back in 2006 did.
' The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis. '
Now they'll have to pay the Israelis to get it for them. Does this count as aid to
Israel?
I am always puzzled to hear that lesbians require artificial insemination. I had a couple
of friends who were a bit behind schedule, and were trying hard to conceive just before the
last eggs would wither. Whatever they were doing, taking days off from work when the
thermometer said so, shoving it at any price, and so on – it could not be described as
pleasurable. So why would the lesbians not bear it if they so much need children?
On a more general note, I am puzzled as to how USSR survived between 1945 and 1989 without
fainting at the thought that Americans would not recognize annexation of the Baltic jokes,
that Russians would not be allowed to use dollars, or that Pokemon Go could be blocked in the
Russian app store. Surely, if you have a population of idiots, like USSR circa 1989, who
would think that it's their ow government blocking the dollar and Pikachu, it may gnaw at the
roots of the state. But today's Russians can guess that with Putin or without him, with
Crimea or without it, they are still seen as enemies of America, and will be treated
accordingly.
Conservatives pilloried the program, which sources said is a gift to an Orthodox Jewish
community that has pressed for government-paid fertility services for 15 years.
Orthodox leaders called the budget measure a "significant victory" for women struggling
to have kids in a community that traditionally values large families.
"This amendment will make it easier for women who would like to have children to do so,"
said Jeff Leb, a top lobbyist for Jewish nonprofits.
Guilty until proven innocent? Don't open that Pandora's box. You're gleefully piling on
the Russians now, but give a few years and the same gang might apply that principle to you in
turn. Just because they hate Russians at this moment doesn't mean they hold any love for the
rest of humanity.
Brunson's captivity had dragged for quite long already, and we heard negotiations for his
release made some progress before. However, Trump ramped up the rhetoric at a precise moment:
when Turkey announced they would not only shirk new Iran sanctions (like they did in the
past) but also were being vocal about this.
Seeing what ensued, again yes the S-400 was an irritant for a while already and certainly
cumulate with other factors but the timeline is interesting. God forbid we conclude those who
should not be named are ultimately setting the agenda here, not really the pastor's plight
under islamist thugs.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge.
He leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK,
there're Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the
Russian government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to
kill two birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government
disclosure on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the
Russian government.
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow
got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested
for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic
to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky
suggest a source other than the Russian government.
That's wrong, except about the innumeracy of the majority of biologists. Evolutionary
biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of them are numerate
(like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).
© Carlo Allegri
/ Reuters Donald Trump has taken time out of his busy presidential schedule to tweet insults at
ex-White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman, amid a rapidly-escalating feud between the two
estranged reality television prima donnas. "Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on The
Apprentice, now got fired for the last time. She never made it, never will. She begged me for a
job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok," Trump tweeted on Monday. "People in the White
House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard really bad
things. Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work."
Omarosa's tape from
inside the Situation Room fuels massive freakout over security